Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Kincardine-on-Forth Bridge Order Confirmation Bill,

Bead a Second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Chepping Wycombe) Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIXED EASTER.

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement to the House as a result of his recent communications with Foreign Powers regarding the fixing of a regular date for Easter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The following Governments have returned replies favourable to a fixed date for Easter, subject in each case to certain conditions: Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Switzerland. The following Governments have referred the question to a committee for further investigation: Netherlands, Italy, France, Portugal. The following Governments consider that the question is primarily one to be settled by the Church, rather than by the State: Lithuania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Poland, Austria, Rumania, Germany and Belgium. Noncommittal replies have been received from the Governments of Albania, Norway, Spain and Sweden. No answer has been received from the Governments of Greece or Latvia.

Mr. HACKING: If it is a fact that none of them have turned down the suggestion, will the right hon. Gentleman
use his influence and apply again to see if he can get the Powers to agree?

Mr. HENDERSON: In the light of the variable character of the replies that we have received, I do not think I can bring very much pressure to bear at the moment.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no demand whatever in this country for a fixed Easter?

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what was the reply from his friends in Russia?

Mr. HACKING: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has had any recent communications with any of our Colonies regarding the fixing of a regular date for Easter; and, if so, what was the result of such communications?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. HACKING: In view of the universal agreement on the question of a fixed Easter in this country, will the hon. Member call the attention of the Colonies to the matter?

Dr. SHIELS: We called the attention of the Colonies to the Easter Act, but we have had no comment from them. We promised that if there was any prospect of an Order-in-Council being made to communicate with them further.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL MORTGAGE CREDIT.

Mr. MANDER: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have decided to support the proposed convention for the establishment of an international mortgage credit company?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The answer is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH SUBJECTS.

Mr. MANDER: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will
state the number of British subjects employed at the present time in Russia in the capacity of technical experts and advisers or workmen?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: In February last His Majesty's Consul-General at Moscow estimated that there were between 60 and 70 British subjects employed as industrial experts, mechanics, etc., in the Soviet Union.

Mr. MANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that something like 800 Americans are working over there, and cannot more British be encouraged to go?

INDUSTRIAL INFORMATION.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any protest has been addressed to the Soviet Government with regard to the measures which have been adopted under the direction of the Soviet State Planning Commission to induce foreign workmen to obtain and inform the Soviet authorities of the industrial secrets of their employers; and whether, in this connection, his attention has been called to the specific invitation addressed to British Communists by the organisation known as the Vanguard Factory Workers, requesting them to communicate technical information to the Soviet Union?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have seen a report in the London Press of the 20th of May in the sense suggested by the hon. and gallant Member. His Majesty's Government have, however, received no complaints from British industrialists, and no question of protest, therefore, arises.

Sir F. HALL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think this is a rather invidious action to be taken by any responsible Government? Does not he think in the circumstances that it would be advisable for him to communicate with the Soviet Government in the matter and find out whether or not what is stated in the question is true?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have informed the House that I am not proceeding to deal with other countries in that way.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Members on this side of the House are very dissatisfied?

THIRD INTERNATIONAL.

Commander BELLAIRS: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Prime Minister Molotov and Mr. Stalin are still members of the Executive Committee of the Third International?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: According to my information, Monsieur Molotov was not re-elected to the Executive Committee of the Third International at the 11th Plenum held in April last. Monsieur Stalin, however, still remains a member of the Presidium of the Executive Committee.

Commander BELLAIRS: Has the right hon. Gentleman made representations that, as Mr. Stalin is a member of the Government, he must be responsible for the actions of the Third International?

Mr. HENDERSON: I am afraid I cannot draw that deduction from the fact I have stated.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Is it not the case that Mr. Stalin is not a member of the Russian Government, but secretary of the Communist party in Russia?

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Stalin was made a member of the Government for the first time in eight years four months ago?

Sir F. HALL: Had you not better ask the hon. Member for Leicester about it?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

IMPORTED ARMS.

Mr DAY: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the figure, according to the most recent returns, of the Chinese maritime customs, showing the amount of the importation of arms and munitions of war imported through treaty ports for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date, giving the total net equivalent average rate of exchange; and can he state the various countries from which these arms were shipped?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:


STATEMENT showing the value of Arms and Munitions of War imported into China during the year 1929 (extracted from the Statistics of the Chinese Maritime Customs).



£


United Kingdom
5,982


Hongkong
57,095


Norway
30,187


Germany
159,526


Japan (including Formosa)
129,482


Other countries
126,599



£508,871

No detailed figures are available for 1930, but the total value of arms and munitions of war imported during that year was £958,601. I should add that the figures given indicate the countries from which the goods are directly shipped to China, and not necessarily the countries of manufacture.

SHANGHAI.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMP-SON: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now supply for the use of Members copies of Mr. Justice Feetham's report on Shanghai?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Two copies of Volume I of the report have been placed in the Library of the House. I have considered the question of supplying copies to individual Members, but, in view of the expense which would be involved, I doubt whether this can be justified. Volume II has not yet been published.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: In view of the great importance of this report, before we have a Debate, which must come very soon, ought not the right hon. Gentleman to supply Members with a certain number of copies?

Mr. HENDERSON: It is a matter for the House, if there is a general desire that we should spend 5s. per volume for 600 odd Members. I am sure all the House will be not be so interested in the question as perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is. There are two copies in the Library.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will these copies be on sale?

Mr. HENDERSON: Yes.

CONVERSATIONS WITH GERMAN MINISTERS.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement concerning his recent conversations with the German Chancellor and Foreign Minister?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I understand that the Prime Minister is answering questions on this subject to-day, and I would ask the House to await his statement.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister when he will be in a position to make a statement on the conversations with the Chancellor and Foreign Minister of the German Republic?

Mr. WISE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make a statement to the House regarding his recent discussions with German Ministers; and whether an early opportunity will be given the House for a discussion on the present position in relation to reparations and inter-Allied debts?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald): As regards the scope of the discussions, I cannot add anything to the communique which was issued on Sunday evening at the close of the Chequers visit. These discussions took, as had always been intended, the form of a general exchange of views, and no conclusions or decisions were reached other than those set forth in the communique. The German Chancellor has invited myself and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to pay a return visit to Berlin. His Majesty's Government have had great pleasure in accepting, but no date has yet been fixed I do not think that in existing circumstances a debate on the present position in relation to reparations and inter-Allied debts would be helpful.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the very great importance of this matter, does the right hon. Gentleman
anticipate that the situation will be such that it will be possible to make a rather further statement in the future?

The PRIME MINISTER: No. I cannot anticipate any further official communique.

Mr. WISE: In regard to the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, is he aware that in this Parliament there has been no single general discussion on inter-Allied debts or reparation? Is not the matter of such importance that it ought to be discussed in this House?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, when the time comes.

NAVAL ARMAMENTS.

Sir K. WOOD: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, at the recent meetings at Geneva, the matter of the naval building programmes of France and Italy was discussed; what further steps the Government now propose to take in the matter of the proposed naval agreement; and whether he can now make a further statement on the present position?

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position in regard to preparations for a further naval disarmament conference, especially in regard to the Franco-Italian naval agreement negotiations?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I would refer the hon. Members to the replies given by me to questions on the same subject on Monday last and also on Wednesday last.

Sir K. WOOD: Was the matter discussed at Geneva?

Mr. HENDERSON: It was not discussed in the sense that there was an open discussion, but it was the subject of private conversation and reference.

Sir K. WOOD: What further steps are being taken?

Mr. HENDERSON: I think I indicated that this question had been somewhat influenced by the recent elections that have taken place for the Presidency of the French Republic. The present Government has to offer its resignation
to the new President on the 13th instant, and I am hoping that when a new Government is, as it were, installed under the new President, an opportunity may arise to continue the negotiations.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

VISITS TO RIGA.

Commander SOUTHBY: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the names of His Majesty's ships which have visited Riga during the past 10 years and the dates on which those visits were paid?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): With the hon. and gallant Member's permission I will circulate particulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the particulars:

Visits of His Majesty's Ships to Riga since 1st January, 1921.

1921.

Danae, Windsor, Wessex.—28th July, 1921–30th July, 1921.

Curacoa, Caledon, Castor, Cordelia, Spenser, Vanquisher, Vectis, Venetia, Viceroy, Violent, Viscount Winchelsea, Wolfhound—13th September, 1921–15th September, 1921.

1922.

Delhi, Dunedin, Dragon, Wolsey, Wools-ton, Venomous, Vampire.—31st August, 1922–4th September, 1922.

1923.

Caledon, Castor, Curacoa.—23rd June, 1923–27th June, 1923.

1924.

Caledon, Valkyrie, Vanity, Venturous, Violent.—7th June, 1924–11th June, 1924.

Curacoa, Conquest. Submarines K.2, K.6, K.12, K.22, M.3–13th June, 1924–18th June, 1924.

1925.

Curacoa, Caledon, Calliope, Cleopatra.—25th June, 1925–1st July, 1925.

1927.

Alecto. Submarines H.27, H.30, H.31, H.48.—3rd July, 1927–7th July, 1927.

1928.

Curacoa, Comus.—23rd June, 1928–30th June, 1928.

1929.

Vindictive, Canterbury.—19th June, 1929–24th June, 1929.

IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Mr. SMITHERS: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the recent visit of His Majesty's Ship "Nelson" and other vessels to the West Indies and United States, he will consider the advisability of sending one or more large warships to Canadian waters in honour of the Imperial Economic Conference at Ottawa?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I would refer the hon. Member to the announcement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions that it has been decided to postpone the Conference until 1932.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "FALCON" (RE-ERECTION, CHINA).

Commander SOUTH BY: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in the case of His Majesty's gunboat which has recently been erected in China from material constructed in Great Britain and shipped abroad in dismantled sections, the contract was given to a British or Chinese firm; and whether the work was done in a dockyard employing solely Chinese labour or one employing British as well as Chinese labour?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The contract for His Majesty's Ship "Falcon" (gunboat) was given to Yarrow and Company, Limited, of Scotstoun, who as main contractors, are responsible to the Admiralty for the completion of the vessel in all respects and for her final delivery after re-erection and trials in China. Messrs. Yarrow elected to place the work of re-erection in China with the Kianguan Company as sub-contractors, as this firm had considerable recent experience with this special type of vessel. The Kianguan Company is Chinese-owned, but it is understood that the works are under British technical management.

Commander SOUTHBY: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that in future work of this kind is given to British firms in China and not to Chines firms?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I could not give any specific undertaking of that kind: If what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind is the labour employed, it is certain that British firms at Shanghai employ as much foreign labour as the others.

RUSSIAN TIMRER.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any timber imported from Soviet Russia is used by his Department?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply of 16th March (OFFICIAL REPORT, Column 1671) last to the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) and to that of the 19th March (OFFICIAL REPORT, cols. 2147–8, Vol. 249) to the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) in which it was stated that no purchase of Russian timber had been made since August, 1930. This statement still holds good.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate that information to the First Commissioner of Works?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I do not think it is necessary. We deal at the Admiralty in the goods we require, having regard always to price.

PRACTICE FIRING (TARGETS).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many obsolete vessels of the Royal Navy are in use as targets for practice firing; and whether it is intended to make greater use in the future of this type of target?

Mr. ALEXANDER: One obsolete battleship is maintained as a target for practice firings, and the question of converting other vessels due for disposal for this purpose, which will be largely governed by the matter of cost, is under consideration; several hulls of coastal motor boats are also used as targets.

PORTUGUESE REFUGEES.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any payment was made in respect of the cost of giving refuge in British vessels to Portuguese revolutionaries; and if so, by whom?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 22nd May (OFFICIAL REPORT, column 2386) to the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby).

Sir N. G RATTAN-DOYLE: Who paid?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The expenses were paid by the refugees themselves.

1930 BUILDING PBOGRAMME.

Commander SOUTHBY: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the state of construction of the cruisers and destroyers authorised by the 1930 naval building programme; how much money has been actually spent upon each vessel; and will he state what the present position is regarding the vessels of the same classes authorised by the 1931 programme?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The work on the cruisers and destroyers of the 1930 programme has been advanced to the stage of preparation of the necessary drawings and materials prior to the actual laying down of the vessels, except for the destroyers "Dainty" and "Delight," which were laid down on 20th and 22nd April, 1931, respectively. His Majesty's Ship "Achilles" will be laid down on 11th June, 1931. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of expenditure actually incurred on each vessel, but I would say that the amounts do not of course represent the full value of work done and material on order, but only payments made up to the end of May.

Commander SOUTHBY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that no keels of ships have been laid down yet of the 1930 programme?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have already indicated that keels for two destroyers were laid in April. As perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is largely based upon reports of delay which have appeared in two newspapers, I may add that the whole of the work of the 1930 programme is right up to schedule and in accordance with the usual practice of the Admiralty of the day.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will my right hon. Friend not allow himself to be driven by the Opposition into unnecessary expansion?

Commander SOUTHBY: Upon what grounds has the right hon. Gentleman
formed his opinion that my question was based upon any newspaper report?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Only that it is significant that the question should be put down after the report had appeared.

The particulars are as follow:


—
Ship.
Expenditure to 31st May, 1931.






£


Cruisers
…
Neptune
…
11,948




Orion
…
11,180




Achilles
…
14,453


Leader
…
Duncan
…
1,201


Destroyers
…
Defender
…
12,043




Diamond
…
6,221




Daring
…
399




Decoy
…
400




Delight
…
4,052




Dainty
…
11,362




Diana
…
7,668




Duchess
…
398

In accordance with the usual practice none of the ships of the 1931 Programme will be ordered until towards the close of the financial year.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "REVENGE" (REFIT).

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that His Majesty's Ship "Revenge," a Portsmouth ship, is to be sent to Devonport for refit after being away for two and a-third years, and that all Portsmouth ratings aboard returning to their homes on first or second leave must pay their own railway fares; and whether some scheme or arrangement for Portsmouth and Devonport ships can be devised to assist ratings in this and similar cases?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for South Portsmouth (Sir H. Cayzer) on the 17th March (OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 1876, Vol. 249).

Sir B. FALLE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that further consideration should be given to this matter in view of the poverty of ratings?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I think that the hon. Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) knows that this is a matter which has been raised again and again and that the decision of the Admiralty has been made clear on the matter, and I do not propose to alter it.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the refit will be done much better at Devonport?

DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS (BONUS UPON RE-ENTRY).

Captain W. G. HALL: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether men in Portsmouth dockyard, discharged on reduction after six years and 10 months' service, are eligible to count such time for the seven years' bonus upon re-entry?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The answer is in the affirmative, provided that no service can be reckoned if a break of three complete years intervenes between it and subsequent service or if subsequent breaks in service amount in the aggregate to seven years.

VOLUNTEER RESERVE (RECRUITING).

Captain CROOKSHANK (for Mr. RAMSBOTHAM): 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the shortage in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve; what steps are being taken to obtain recruits; and, seeing that one reason for the shortage is the fact that there are not enough depots, whether an increase of the number is contemplated?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The shortage, however, is not serious and is being overcome. The recruiting methods adopted by the Commanding Officers are various:
Descriptive Pamphlets.
Press Announcements.
Route Marches, etc.
Probably the most fruitful source of obtaining recruits, however, is furnished by the men themselves after performing a period of training afloat in the Fleet. An increase in the number of Divisions and Sub-Divisions would not justify the considerable expense which it would involve.

JAMAICA AND MAURITIUS (SUGAR INDUSTRY).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the average quantity of sugar produced per acre of sugar-cane in Jamaica and in Mauritius?

Dr. SHIELS: The latest figures available from Jamaica and Mauritius relate to the crop season for 1929. In Jamaica an area of 44,034 acres was under sugarcane cultivation, in Mauritius 156,085 acres. The production was 65,596 tons of sugar or 1.26 tons per acre, and 234,276 tons or 1.50 tons per acre, respectively. The acreage mentioned is that normally under cultivation. The area actually reaped during the year is somewhat smaller.

Mr. HURD: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been sent to the petitions addressed to His Majesty by the Jamaica Chamber of Commerce and Merchants' Exchange and the Jamaica Imperial Association relative to the sugar industry of the colony; and what further action is to be taken to relieve the difficulties of the colony?

Dr. SHIELS: The Governor of Jamaica was requested to inform the petitioners that their petitions had been laid before His Majesty the King, who had caused them to be transmitted to the Secretary of State for the Colonies; that the Secretary of State had advised His Majesty that his Ministers would continue to watch with sympathy and concern the difficulties which embarrass not only the sugar industry but also a number of other industries in all parts of the Empire, and would not fail to apply any remedies that may appear to them possible in the very difficult circumstances now existing; and that His Majesty had not been pleased to give any special instructions concerning the petitions. The Governor of Jamaica proposed to suspend for the year 1931–32 the annual contribution of £60,000 which the colony makes towards the cost of the War, and to apply the amount to the relief of the sugar industry during that year. His Majesty's Government have approved this proposal.

Mr. HURD: Will the hon. Gentleman say what other requests beyond the War debt matter have been made in order to relieve the situation in the colony?

Dr. SHIELS: I am afraid that I should require notice of that question.

CUBA (REPATRIATION OF JAMAICANS).

Mr. HURD: 27.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how
many Jamaicans have been deported from Cuba to Jamaica on account of destitution; how many have still to be deported; and what measures are in contemplation for their maintenance in their home colony?

Dr. SHIELS: The Governor of Jamaica has recently reported that for the financial year 1930–31 expenditure on the repatriation of distressed Jamaicans from Cuba amounted to £7,300, and that a special officer had been appointed to assist the local authorities at Santiago de Cuba in dealing with the situation. Over 2,000 persons were repatriated to Jamaica during 1930, and in July of that year it was estimated that of the 60,000 British West Indians in Cuba, 20,000 were dependent on the sugar industry and therefore likely, in view of the depression in that industry, to apply in large numbers for repatriation. The Governor is no doubt taking suitable measures to deal with repatriated persons, but no particulars of those measures have been received.

Mr. HURD: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that some special action seems to be called for owing to the very large number involved in this depression?

Dr. SHIELS: The action is primarily one for the Government of Jamaica, and, as far as things have gone, they have found themselves capable of dealing with the situation. If they had anything further to suggest, of course we should be glad to consider it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the Under-Secretary of State tell the House why so many Jamaicans have been deported from Cuba?

Dr. SHIELS: As I explained before, there is a general depression in the sugar industry in the West Indies, and Cuba, in spite of some statements to the contrary in certain quarters, has suffered quite as much depression as our own islands.

Captain P. MACDONALD: Has there been any corresponding repatriation of Cubans from British Colonies?

Dr. SHIELS: No, I have not heard of any.

Captain MACDONALD: Will the hon. Gentleman look into this matter?

Dr. SHIELS: I do not think that it is necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORGE.

DROPPED BOMBS, EAST RIDING.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what were the circumstances in which smoke bombs were dropped from an aeroplane on the farm of Mr. Walter Duggleby, near Driffield, in the East Riding, on the 6th June last?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): I regret the incident to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. It is under investigation by a court of inquiry, and I am therefore not as yet in a position to make any statement regarding it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will my hon. Friend let me know when he will be able to make a statement?

Mr. MONTAGUE: indicated assent.

STOKERS (INSURANCE).

Mr. BEAUMONT: 30.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he has considered the position of the stokers at Halton and other Air Force camps who have been declared outside the purview of the Insurance Acts by the recent decision of the High Court; and whether he has considered the possibility and desirability of making their employment regular instead of casual?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and consequently every effort is made to find other employment for these men during the spring and summer, but my Noble Friend much regrets that it is not possible to guarantee such employment.

Mr. BEAUMONT: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he thinks that it is likely that the majority of these men will be absorbed?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I am not sure about the majority, but there will be a very large number. I may add that the question of insurance is not involved in the question of continuous employment.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

DAMAGED ROADS, MONMOUTHSHIRE.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 32.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the damage to roads caused by last week's storm in Monmouthshire; and whether he will consider making a grant to repair the damage, as Monmouthshire is a necessitous area and has suffered on account of the industrial depression?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANS-PORT (Mr. Parkinson): My right hon. Friend's attention has been called to the damage caused to roads and bridges in Monmouthshire by the recent storm. He has informed the county council that he is prepared to consider applications for grants from the Road Fund towards the cost of approved schemes for remedying the damage.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very great damage that was done in Devonshire, and should not there be an increased grant to that county?

PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (LOST PROPERTY).

Mr. DAY: 33.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the order recently issued, that the operators of public vehicles shall in future deal with lost property, applies to motor vehicles using the Metropolitan county of London?

Mr. PARKINSON: The Public Service Vehicles (Lost Property) Provisional Regulations, 1931, only apply to property found in public service vehicles, as defined in the Road Traffic Act, 1930. That definition does not include tramcars, trolley vehicles, or vehicles of the taxi-cab type, and property found in such vehicles will be dealt with as heretofore throughout the country. So far as London is concerned, the Regulations also do not apply in the case of a vehicle which during any part of its journey is used as a short stage omnibus within the Metropolitan Police District. Property found in such vehicles will continue to be dealt with at the Metropolitan Police Lost Property Office.

Mr. DAY: Can my hon. Friend say what happens to the property found in public vehicles outside the London
radius when the journey terminates within the London radius?

Mr. PARKINSON: No, not without notice of the question.

LONDON TRAFFIC (OXFORD STREET RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. DAY: 34.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the representations from Oxford Street shop keepers and London taximeter-cab drivers or associations with reference to the re cent restrictions placed upon taximeter-cabs turning or stopping in Oxford Street; and can he state what has been his answer?

Mr. PARKINSON: My right hon. Friend has carefully considered all the representations which have been received regarding the proposed restrictions on vehicles turning or stopping in Oxford Street, and in order to give the proposed experiment with traffic control signals every chance of success, he has decided that the regulations must be made in the form of which notice has been given. He proposes, however, to review the whole position after the signalling system has been in operation for two or three months.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the system will come into operation with regard to taxi-cabs?

Mr. PARKINSON: I shall require notice of that question.

MOTOR COACH SERVICES.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport what steps are being taken to co-ordinate the varying conditions reached by various traffic com missioners in respect of the same motor coach services which pass through their areas?

Mr. PARKINSON: The conditions to be attached to a road service licence fall to be determined, in the first instance, by the traffic commissioners concerned, having regard, amongst other things, to the traffic conditions existing in their own area. I hope that when further experience has been gained it may be possible for the commissioners to standardise such conditions as may prove to be generally applicable to a particular type of service. To these would be added such special local conditions as might be necessary.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that, owing to the varying decisions, in the same districts more or less, char-a-banc proprietors do not know whether they stand at the present time?

Mr. PARKINSON: I am aware of that fact. The chairman of the commissioners has nominated a sub-committee to consider the whole question.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport the approximate number of people employed by the motor coach services of the country; the amount of capital invested; and the estimated number of passengers carried in the course of the year?

Mr. PARKINSON: My right hon. Friend is not in possession of the information desired by the hon. Member.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Will it be possible to obtain the information?

Mr. PARKINSON: Yes. The information can be secured under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, but it will take some time to collect the facts.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: 37.
asked the Minister of Transport whether in view of the uncertainty which exists all over the country in respect of motor-coach services, he proposes to take any steps to expedite the investigations of the traffic commissioners; and whether he will consider the desirability of allowing all existing motor-coach services to continue during the present summer, with the object of avoiding unemployment and enabling the public to know exactly what holiday facilities exist, it being understood that the recommendations of the commissioners will only become operative in the autumn?

Mr. PARKINSON: Under the provisions of the Public Service Vehicles (Transitory Provisions) Order, an applicant for a road service licence who was operating a service on 9th February, 1931, can continue to run that service pending the grant or refusal of his application by the Commissioners. Similarly a seasonal service operated during the 12 months ended 31st March last can be run during the corresponding period or periods of this year. In these circumstances my right hon. Friend sees no reason for taking action on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.

RAILWAY AND ROAD SERVICES.

Sir F. HALL: 42.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will consider setting up a committee to inquire into the financial conditions under which railways and road transport systems operate, particularly as regards the extent to which they are respectively called upon to contribute to national and local expenditure, and to advise whether, in the national interest, some readjustment should be made as regards the burdens and disabilities to which railway transport is subjected?

Mr. PARKINSON: The subject to which the hon. and gallant Member refers was examined in its wide aspect by the Royal Commission on Transport and their observations and recommendations are now receiving my right hon. Friend's consideration.

Sir F. HALL: Are the Government contemplating any alteration in regard to the rating of the railway companies owing to their depressed condition and the large amount of money invested in them by all classes?

Mr. PARKINSON: I cannot say what the Government are contemplating, but the whole circumstances are receiving consideration.

RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION.

Sir N. G RATTAN-DOYLE: 43.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any decision has yet been reached in regard to the committee on main-line railway electrification?

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: 39 and 41.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will state what steps he intends to take in respect of the electrification of the railways, having regard to the view taken by the Weir Report as to the amount of work which would be provided by it and the beneficial effect it would have on the distribution and the cost of electricity throughout the country;
(2) whether he will take steps to induce the railway companies immediately to take in hand the electrification of the suburban services round our great cities and more especially round London, seeing that the Royal Commission on Transport in 1905 recommended that course and having regard to the success of the Southern Railway?

Mr. PARKINSON: As my right hon. Friend has already stated, he has asked the principal railway companies to consider the report to which the hon. Members refer, and to furnish him with their observations upon it as soon as they can. It will be remembered that the commercial success likely to result in certain circumstances from carrying out schemes of suburban electrification is one of the matters to which the report refers.

Sir N. G RATTAN-DOYLE: In view of the very great importance of this question, will the hon. Member endeavour to have the matter expedited?

Mr. PARKINSON: I can only say that urgent representations have been made to the railway companies to take the matter into consideration.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Will the hon. Gentleman submit to the Minister of Transport that, if State assistance is to be given for the electrification of the railway service, it should be nationalised?

WORKPEOPLE'S OUTINGS AND SCHOOL THEATS.

Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL: 49.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can make any statement as to the Government's intentions in the matter of the use without charge of lorries for such purposes as workpeople's outings and school treats?

Mr. CAMPBELL: 50.
asked the Minister of Transport what decision has now been reached with regard to permitting the use of motor lorries without charge for the purpose of carrying parties of children, boy scouts, girl guides, and cricket and football teams?

Mr. PARKINSON: The Government have carefully considered the representations which have been received as to the hardships which may be caused by the fact that Sub-section (3) of Section 61 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, does not permit of the use without charge of lorries for the conveyance of cricket or football teams, or of passengers on such occasions as workpeople's outings, school treats and camps. I am afraid it is not practicable to provide special exemption for occasions such as these, and the Government have reached the conclusion that on the whole the balance of advantage lies on the side of repealing the Subsection
altogether, although this course will legalise the use of lorries for the conveyance of passengers on less desirable occasions and for less worthy purposes than those indicated in the question, so long as no payment is made for the use of the vehicle. My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to arrange for the introduction in another place at an early date of a one Clause Bill providing for the repeal of the Sub-section on the understanding that the Bill is to be regarded as non-controversial.

Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL: While thanking the Minister for his reply, can he assure us that, if the Bill is passed, these lorries can be used for outings and school treats not only, as was said in the "Times" yesterday, from village to village, but from the cities to the countryside?

Mr. PARKINSON: That is the purpose of the Bill being introduced.

Mr. CAMPBELL: While thoroughly appreciating the fact that the Government have taken this decision, may I ask them to expedite the Bill as much as they possibly can, as the health of tens of thousands of young people depends upon its passage?

Mr. PARKINSON: My hon. Friend may rest content that no time will be lost.

Major COLFOX: Will the Bill include provision for altering the law in other respects to which the Minister's attention has been called?

Mr. PARKINSON: No.

ROAD MAINTENANCE.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 62.
asked the Minister of Health what was the ratio of rates to taxes in the cost of the maintenance and construction of highways in England and Wales in the last financial year; and whether the cost to the rates in the country districts shows a higher ratio to taxes than in towns and cities?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): The information for which the hon. and gallant Member asks is not available in respect of the last financial year.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Is it available for the year before?

Miss LAWRENCE: I have no doubt that I can send the hon. Member such information.

RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSINGS.

Captain CROOKSHANK (for Mr. RAMSBOTHAM): 31.
asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the recent level-crossing accident near Lewes, he will suggest to the railway companies that they should display at some distance from each level-crossing a night-illuminated sign, which would under any circumstances attract the attention of motorists?

Mr. PARKINSON: The erection of the authorised road warning sign, indicating approach to a level-crossing, is a matter for the appropriate highway authority rather than for the railway company. My Tight hon. Friend is in communication with the highway authority on the subject of the need for warning signs at the crossing where the accident in question took place.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.

PYLONS, NORTH RIDING.

Mr. TURTON: 44.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received the report of the conference held last April between the Central Electricity Board and the Scarborough District Joint Town-planning Committee regarding the proposed route of electrical pylons between Pickering and Whitby; and whether, in view of the protests from the inhabitants of the North Riding of Yorkshire, he will recommend the adoption of an alternative route that will not disfigure the natural beauty of the countryside?

Mr. PARKINSON: My right hon. Friend has not received any report of the conference referred to and the Central Electricity Board have not yet applied for his statutory consent to erect the overhead line referred to. When such application is made he will consider the relevant matters.

Mr. TURTON: Will the hon. Gentleman reply to the second part of my question?

Mr. PARKINSON: I cannot reply to the second part when no representation has been made and the Board have not asked for consent to erect the pylons.

PAINSWICK.

Mr. PERKINS: 48.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the village of Painswick, near Stroud, is not yet supplied with electricity from the West Gloucester Power Company; and whether he will draw the attention of the Electricity Commissioners to the need of this supply being given?

Mr. PARKINSON: My right hon. Friend is aware that the village of Painswick, near Stroud is not yet supplied with electricity by the West Gloucester Power Company. The lack of supply has been the subject of correspondence and discussion between the Electricity Commissioners and the Company, and he is informed that the Company, as a result of detailed inquiry, are of opinion that the demand for electricity in this District is at present insufficient to ensure a revenue sufficient to meet the cost of supply, etc., apart from any return on the capital required.

VALK OF TOWEY.

Mr. HOPKIN: 51.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will expedite the preparation of a scheme for demonstration purposes for the electrification of the Vale of Towey; and what towns and villages it is proposed to include?

Mr. PARKINSON: The Electricity Commissioners are in communication with interested parties with regard to the preparation of a comprehensive scheme of electrification in a suitable district in South Wales. The development of such a scheme for the Vale of Towey presents certain difficulties since there is no existing undertaker authorised to supply electricity within the whole area of the Vale, but the possibility is being examined.

CHARGES, LONDON.

Mr. WEST: 52.
asked the Minister of Transport the revenue per unit of electricity sold for lighting and domestic purposes by the Notting Hill Company, the South London Company, the South Metropolitan Company, Woolwich, St. Marylebone, and Wimbledon Borough Councils?

Mr. PARKINSON: The average revenue per unit received during 1929–30 for lighting and domestic supplies, including lighting of business premises, was over 4d., in the case of the first three undertakings referred to, and under 2d. in the case of the last two.

Mr. WEST: Can my hon. Friend explain why the charge of private companies should be practically double that of public authorities?

Mr. PARKINSON: The hon. Member had better put down a further question on that matter.

WAR DEBTS.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider calling a conference of the Powers interested in international settlements with a view to the mutual cancellation of obligations on the largest possible scale?

The PRIME MINISTER: The attitude of this country in regard to War debts is well-known and action on the lines suggested would not, in present circumstances, serve any useful purpose.

GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS (STONEWORK).

Mr. HARRIS: 53.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider washing down the stonework of all new Government buildings at regular intervals to prevent their disfigurement by soot and smoke?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): I have recently given consideration to the desirability of washing down the stonework of Government buildings, but, in the present financial stringency, it has not been practicable to allocate funds for the purpose.

Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the principle of keeping Government buildings clean?

Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, but the necessary money must be available.

Mr. HARRIS: Are there not many persons unemployed?

PALACE YARD (MOTOR LORRIES).

Mr. THORNE: 54.
asked the First Com missioner of Works whether his attention has been drawn to the dangerous way in which motor lorry drivers drive their lorries under the arches from Palace Yard; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?

Mr. LANSBURY: The control of traffic within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster is not in my hands. I will, however, draw the attention of the responsible officers to the matter.

Mr. THORNE: Can my right hon. Friend say who is the responsible officer in this matter? Is he aware that on one or two occasions some hon. Members of this House have almost met with what might have been a serious accident. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] Your humble servant, at five minutes past eleven last Monday.

Mr. LANSBURY: Every precaution will be taken to prevent any accident to my hon. Friend, and he may rest assured that the proper authorities will be communicated with.

KING'S NATIONAL ROLL (GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS).

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 55.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if it is still the practice of his Department only to place orders for goods with firms which are enrolled on the King's Roll?

Mr. LANSBURY: The principle laid down in the Resolution of this House on the 16th February, 1926, is still followed by my Department.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the First Commissioner of Works aware that recently an order for joinery tools was placed with a Birmingham firm who are not on the King's Roll, and that the offer of other firms who are on the King's Roll was not entertained?

Mr. LANSBURY: If the hon. Member will give me particulars, I will have the matter investigated?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

HOME AND FOREIGN PRICES.

Mr. MANDER: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what the attitude
was of His Majesty's Government to the suggestion of M. Litvinov at the session of the Commission of Inquiry for European Union on 18th May, at Geneva, that the States represented on the Commission should adopt a joint declaration, subsequently to be converted into an international convention, making it compulsory to sell on the home market at prices not higher than on the foreign market?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): While M. Litvinoff did indeed foreshadow, at the meeting of the Commission of Inquiry for European Union, a proposal on the lines indicated in the question, the draft resolution which he submitted to the Commission was of a different character, and I am circulating its text in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Commission decided to refer this resolution to its Economic Co-ordination Sub-Committee, which will meet at a later date.

Mr. MANDER: As this is a proposal to stop dumping will not the Government do all they can to support it?

Mr. SMITH: I have not the slightest doubt that the matter will receive consideration.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that Russia at this conference offered to do away with dumping entirely, just as they offered to disarm if the rest would disarm?

Following is the text of the draft resolution:
1. The contracting parties once more solemnly confirm the principle proclaimed at the International Economic Conference of 1927, of the peaceful coexistence of countries, irrespective of their social-political and economic systems.
2. The parties undertake not to adopt, in their relations with each other, any discrimination whatsoever, and regard the adoption in any of their countries of a special attitude militating against the interests of one or any of the countries subscribing to this Protocol as incompatible with its principles.

IMPORTED GOODS (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Sir F. HALL: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider introducing legislation to require that all goods imported into this country shall be accompanied by a statement of the labour conditions under which they
were produced, and to provide for returns to be submitted to Parliament from time to time of such imports with particulars of the wages paid to and the hours worked by the persons employed in their production?

Mr. W. R. SMITH: No, Sir.

Sir F. HALL: Do the Government consider that the information referred to in the question is of such importance that they do not think it necessary to give an answer?

Mr. SMITH: The answer is that the suggestion is quite impracticable.

IRISH FREE STATE (APPEALS TO PRIVY COUNCIL).

Sir K. WOOD: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has recently received any communication from the Irish Free State in relation to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and is he now in a position to communicate to the House the present position?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I am not in a position to add anything to the previous replies which I have given on the subject.

Sir K. WOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to answering the first part, as to whether he has received any communication?

Mr. THOMAS: That is covered by my answer.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 60.
asked the Minister of Health the number of insured women under the National Health Insurance Act who are entitled to additional benefit, No. 9 (dental benefit), under the valuation schemes of approved societies for the second Valuation period, and the number of insured women who are, or will be, entitled to such benefit under the third valuation schemes?

Miss LAWRENCE: The number of insured women members of approved societies and branches in England having schemes of dental benefit following the second valuations was approximately 4,250,000. The complete results of the
third valuation are not yet available, but my right hon. Friend regrets to say that from the results already received it is evident that there will be a considerable reduction in the number of women entitled to dental benefit.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 61.
asked the Minister of Health if at is proposed to issue any report or paper showing how the transference of Poor Law administration from the boards of guardians to the county councils and county borough councils has worked and is working?

Miss LAWRENCE: This subject will be dealt with in the annual report of my Department, now in course of preparation.

TEST WORK.

Mr. BROCKWAY: 63.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that persons doing test work under the public assistance committees of the London County Council are employed on the destruction and reconstruction of buildings, and the making of mattresses, furniture, boots and uniforms, for which work the return is relief of 10s. a week and less; whether his attention has been drawn to the complaints that this work and its conditions interfere with trade union standards; and whether he is prepared to issue Regulations in relation to this matter?

Miss LAWRENCE: My right hon. Friend has been in correspondence with the London County Council on the whole question of test work, and has made it clear that his approval of any such work proposed is subject to the condition that it does not cover work which forms part of necessary maintenance or upkeep and would otherwise be done for wages. Inmates of an institution may, however, properly perform work connected with the institution. My right hon. Friend is advised that work on the destruction and reconstruction of buildings appears only to be carried out at residential institutions, and generally that any products of the work are used solely for the purpose of the centres or the persons attending them, and no displacement of outside labour is involved.
As regards the second part of the question, my right hon. Friend has more than once explained, both in this House and in reply to complaints of the kind in question, that the criticism is based on a misunderstanding. Work performed under Article 6 of the Belief Regulation Order, 1930, as a condition of the grant of relief, is not work for wages, the amount of relief being determined not by the work performed but by the needs of the applicant's household. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Is it not the case that a payment of less than 10s. is made for a full week's work of this character, and cannot the Government issue regulations which will prohibit this forced labour under sweated conditions?

Miss LAWRENCE: This is work which is being done in the institutions where the persons receive maintenance. I think the hon. Member had better look again into the question.

Mr. KINLEY: May I ask whether facilities could be provided for a full investigation of these conditions by representatives of the Soviet Government?

TROOPING OF THE COLOUR (PRESS ARRANGEMENTS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements were made for representatives of the newspapers to witness the ceremony of the trooping of the Colour on 6th June last?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): The arrangements were the same as those adopted in the previous year. Permits were issued to representatives of the Press which allowed them access to standing room either in the Household Brigade enclosures or behind the line of sentries on either side of the parade ground.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any complaints about the lack of accommodation?

Mr. SHAW: No, Sir; but, if any are made officially, I will have them investigated.

Mr. MARLEY: May I ask whether Members of this House who represent the Press were asked to be present?

Mr. SHAW: Members of this House had an opportunity, like everybody else, of getting a seat if they applied for it and paid for it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: As we are living in an age of economising, cannot we economise and do away with the trooping of the Colour, because it is bound to cost a lot of bawbees?

Mr. SHAW: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

MINORITY COMMUNITIES.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, with a view to allaying the fears of the minority communities in India, he will make a statement that no settlement of the India problem will be accepted which does not assure to every minority safety of person, safety of religion, and safety of property?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the Prime Minister's statement at the conclusion of the Round Table Conference.

Sir A. KNOX: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it worth while repeating the statement?

Mr. BENN: If the hon. and gallant Member thinks that something is to be gained by re-emphasising that statement, his purpose will be served by his question to-day.

RIOTS, CAWNPORE.

Sir A. KNOX: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will publish the complete evidence of the inquiry into the Cawnpore riots; and at what date it will be in the hands of Members?

Mr. BENN: I think that the full text of the report of the Commission of Inquiry, which I expect to receive during the week-end and will present as soon as possible, will be found to contain all the information required.

Sir A. KNOX: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the publication of the evidence in extenso would be a most valuable lesson to the people of this country and would show the difficulties in India? Would it not be worth while?

Mr. BENN: I have not myself seen either the report or the evidence. I shall have the report with me over the weekend, and when I receive the evidence, as I shall do, I shall consider the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion.

JUTE INDUSTRY.

Mr. MARCUS: 68.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of recent representations made to him on behalf of the jute industry in Dundee, he will in future stipulate that in all cases where companies or corporations are in receipt of a Government subsidy, and such companies or corporations are users of jute bags or jute cloth, the subsidy shall only be granted on condition that when tenders are sent out for the supply of jute bags or cloth they should distinctly state that such bags or cloth, and also the yarn from which those are produced, must be actually manufactured in the United Kingdom?

Mr. HAYES (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has no power to make the stipulation suggested in the question, but he has used, and will continue to use, his influence with the beet-sugar factories to secure that orders for jute bags or jute cloth are placed within the United Kingdom.

UNEMPLOYMENT (ALLOTMENTS).

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 69.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can state the number of districts in which allotments have been offered unsuccessfully to un employed men; and whether his Department has any information to show the actual demand which exists generally among unemployed men for such allotments?

Mr. HAYES: My right hon. Friend is not in a position to give the hon. Member any precise information on the points to which he refers. He has heard of very few districts where the offer of allotments
to unemployed persons has been entirely unsuccessful, though there are many districts where the response has been comparatively small. No attempt has been made to collect information from the large number of local authorities concerned—over 1,100 in urban areas alone—as to the demand in their areas, but the fact that in spite of the very late start over 64,000 men have been assisted with the provision of seeds and other requirements shows that the demand is very considerable.

Mr. SMITH: As it would appear inconceivable that men who unfortunately are without employment for a time would not be wishful to take advantage of the allotment scheme offered, would the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister of Agriculture to;consult with the Minister of Labour and find out what is the difficulty that prevents this scheme being boomed?

Mr. HAYES: My right hon. Friend will no doubt take notice of the question of the hon. Gentleman.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (INQUIRY, BIRMINGHAM).

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to take any action on the report of the Birmingham cinema inquiry which he has received?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): My right hon. Friend is giving the most careful consideration to the matter and hopes to be in a position to make a statement at an early date.

INCOME TAX (CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 73.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the communication sent to him by the grand council of the National Citizen's Union, supported by the administrative committee of the National Union of Manufacturers, urging that the Government will set up a com mission to investigate as to the propriety of compelling co-operative societies to pay Income Tax or its equivalent; and whether the Government will be prepared to take the action suggested, especially
having regard to the fact that, notwithstanding the general fall in prices, the sales of co-operative societies in 1929 amounted to £332,694,000, an increase of £13,470,000 over 1928?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): My right hon. Friend does not see his way to adopt the suggestion put forward in the communication to which the hon. Member refers.

Sir W. DAVISON: Having regard to the great increase in the business done by these co-operative societies a" disclosed in the report referred to in the question, and that it means that private businesses which pay Income Tax are thereby closed down, does the Chancellor of the Exchequer not think it desirable to look into the matter from that point of view?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have already answered that question in the negative. If the hon. Member will pursue the subject further, I would recommend him to peruse the speech of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who dealt very fully with this question on 27th June, 1928.

Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many Members on this side of the House do not agree with that statement?

Mr. BROCKWAY: Would my hon. Friend draw public attention to the fact contained in the statement in the question, that co-operative societies are succeeding while capitalist companies are going bankrupt?

IRISH SWEEPSTAKES (REGIMENTAL FLAG).

Sir W. DAVISON: 74.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that customs officials recently seized the old green flag of the 2nd battalion Con-naught Rangers on its way from Ireland to the Old Comrades' Association regimental dinner in London, on the ground that Irish sweepstake tickets were enclosed with the regimental colours; and what apology has been sent in respect of this affront to the colours of this regiment?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My attention has not previously been called to this matter. I am having inquiries made and will communicate the result to the hon. Member in due course.

EAST AFRICA (LOCUSTS).

Sir N. G RATTAN-DOYLE (for Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON): 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the growing menace from locusts in the East African dependencies; and to what extent assistance is to be given by His Majesty's Government towards the immediate solution of this problem?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir. This important question has been specially studied by the Locust Control Committee of the Economic Advisory Council and active steps are being taken to co-ordinate work in the countries concerned on its solution. On the recommendation of that Committee in its Third Report (Command Paper 3642) a scheme of investigation into the breeding and migration of the desert locust is being undertaken, towards which the Empire Marketing Board have undertaken to provide £2,720 during the present financial year on a pound for pound basis, in addition to grants totalling £1,020 to cover the cost of collection and dissemination of information on desert locusts by the Imperial Institute of Entomology from 1929 to 1932.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the Under-Secretary aware of the enormous damage done by these pests, and is he satisfied that the steps being taken are sufficient to deal with the matter?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes, we are well aware of the importance of the subject. A conference of experts is being held very shortly, and after that we hope to have co-operative action by all the Governments concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

NATIVE RESERVES.

Mr. BROCKWAY (for Mr. HORRA-BIN): 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the acreage allotted to each of the separate tribes embraced within the total area of the Native reservations
in Kenya Colony; the estimated numbers of each tribe; and the estimated head of livestock owned by each tribe?

Dr. SHIELS: As the answer to this question necessarily contains a large number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend'" permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

1. The following are the areas of the Native Reserves in Kenya which, according to the latest information in the Colonial Office, have been gazetted:—



Square Miles.


North Kavirondo
2,394


Central Kavirondo
1,772


South Kavirondo
2,956


Nandi
736


Lumbwa (Belgut Buret and Sotik)
830


Suk
3,389


Kamasia
1,600


Marakwet
752


Elgeyo
412


Njemps
255


Masai
14,854


Kiambu
400


Fort Hall
583


Nyeri
743


Embu
1,090


Meru
2,471


Machakos (Ulu)
1,670


Kikumbuliu
496


Kitui (including Mumoni and Tharaka)
5,911


Taveta
46


Dabida
200


Sagalla
82


Northern Nyika
2,367


Southern Nyika
1,825


Digo detached areas
77


Southern Pokomo
30


Central Pokomo
127


Northern Pokomo
119


Total
48,187

The Northern Frontier Province and the Turkana Province have been declared "closed districts," but as explained in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Camberwell, N. W., on the 8th December, 1930, the question of declaring these Provinces as native reserves has not arisen.

2. According to a return received in 1929 the estimated total native population of the various tribal districts was as follows:


Tribal Districts.
Estimated total native population.


Central Kavirondo
370,046


South Kavirondo
320,514


North Kavirondo
332,835


Lumbwa-Kericho
79,140


Nandi
38,982


Nyeri
211,850


Fort Hall
176,667


Kyambu-Nairobi
113,045


Meru
142,744


Embu-Chuka
93,238


Machakos
216,932


Kitui
133,971


Teita
37,251


Coastal
100,436


Suk, Elgeyo, Marakwet—Kerio Province
165,923


Masai
51,743


Total
2,585,317

Note.—The native population in the North Frontier District is probably about 100,000, but no close estimate can at present be given.

3. Full particulars of the livestock owned by natives are given on pages 61 and 62 of the Agricultural Census for the Colony for 1930, a copy of which is being placed in the Library of the House.

ALIENATED LAND.

Mr. BROCKWAY (for Mr. HORRABIN): 23.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state she number of holdings of alienated land in Kenya Colony of less than 500 acres; and the number of holdings of between 500 and 1,000 acres, 1,000 and 2,000 acres, 2,000 and 5,000 acres, 5,000 and 10,000 acres, 10,000 and 20,000 acres, 20,000 and 50,000 acres, 50,000 and 100,000 acres, and over 100,000 acres, respectively?

Dr. SHIELS: Statistics of alienated land in Kenya in the form desired are not on record in the Colonial Office, but the Governor of Kenya is being asked whether he can supply them.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

STEEL HOUSES, SHETTLESTON.

Mr. MAXTON (for Mr. McGOVERN): 58.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is prepared to abolish the missive system in operation at steel houses at Sandyhills, Shettleston, and also the 20s. deposit by tenants for the key of the house?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): My right hon. Friend has no power to abolish the use of the missive in question as the conditions of let applying to these houses are a matter for the Second Scottish National Housing Company (Housing Trust), Limited. The deposit of £1 by each tenant is, I am informed, required as security to the housing company against damage done apart from ordinary wear and tear and it, or any balance due, is refunded at the end of the tenancy.

Mr. MAXTON: Is this Second National Housing Trust Company, something different from the Ministry?

Mr. WESTWOOD: Yes, it is entirely different from the Ministry and has power to apply certain conditions to letting, but, as I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) yesterday, I am having full inquiries made into the whole of the conditions under the housing trust.

Mr. MAXTON: Is not this the pseudo company set up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) and entirely financed out of Governmental money?

Mr. WESTWOOD: All I can say is that it is entirely independent of control so far as the Department of Health in Scotland is concerned.

Mr. MAXTON: I am sorry to persist, but do I understand that this company, owned by the State, is controlled by someone other than the appropriate Government Department?

Mr. WESTWOOD: I do not admit that it is owned by the State.

Mr. MAXTON: We only pay for it.

RENT RESTHICTIONS ACT.

Mr. GOULD: 64.
asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made with the committee dealing with the
questions arising out of the Rent Restrictions Act; and when their report may be expected?

Miss LAWRENCE: My right hon. Friend understands that the Committee have practically completed the hearing of evidence, and, as he recently informed my hon. Friend, the Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown), he hopes to receive the report before the end of the Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

SURPLUS.

Mr. BEAUMONT (for Mr. BUTLER): 70.
asked the Postmaster-General if he can state the approximate profit, as it will appear in the commercial accounts, of the postal services for the year ended 31st March, 1931?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Viant): I presume the hon. Member refers to postal services as apart from other services performed by the Post Office. The surplus for the year ended 31st March, 1931, is estimated, subject to adjustment, at about £9,884,000.

PAYMENTS AND RECEIPTS.

Mr. BEAUMONT (for Viscount LYMINGTON): 71.
asked the Postmaster- General the total amount paid out annually by the agency of the Post Office in War pensions, old age pensions, and widows' pensions, etc., and in repayment of savings certificates on behalf of other departments, and the total sum collected annually in the sale of savings certificates, insurance stamps, revenue stamps and licences, etc.?

Mr. VIANT: As the answer involves a large number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

For the 12 months ended 31st March, 1931, the figures asked for are as follow:


Payments Out.
£


1. War Pensions (i. e. payments made on behalf of Ministry of Pensions)
40,534,000





£


2. Old Age, Widows' and Orphans' Pensions
73,793,000


3. Repayments of National Savings Certificates (including £16,885,000 paid as interest)
53,797,000


Receipts.


4. Sale of National Savings Certificates
50,473,000


5. Sale of Ulster Savings Certificates
436,000


6. Sale of Health and Pensions Insurance Stamps
45,934,000


7. Sale of Unemployment In surance Stamps
28,000,000


8. Sale of Inland Revenue Stamps (not including £2,384,597 paid to Inland Revenue Department for Postage Stamps used for Inland Revenue purposes)
2,796,000


9. Sale of Licences:


Local Taxation
£1,560,000


Road Fund
£3,078,000



4,638,000


(excluding Wireless Licences £1,812,171)


10. Sale of Income Tax Stamps
121,000


11. Sale of Entertainment Duty Stamps
312,000

HIS MAJESTY'S SUBMARINE "POSEIDON" (COLLISION).

Captain W. G. HALL (by Private Notice): asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is in a position to make a statement to the House upon the disaster in Eastern waters involving the sinking of a British submarine with regrettable loss of life?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I deeply regret to inform the House that His Majesty's submarine "Poseidon" was rammed and sunk by the steamship "Yuta," a Chinese vessel of 1,735 tons at 12.45 yesterday, 9th June, 21 miles north of Wei-hai-wei. The submarine was on the surface at the time of the collision. The Commander-in-Chief, China, who is proceeding to Wei-hai-wei, reports that the total number now saved and alive is five officers and 30 men. Two more ratings who came to the surface have died, and 18 ratings are missing. The wreck has been located, and efforts are being made to-day to raise the
submarine. "Medway" (submarine depot ship), "Hermes," "Cumberland," and other naval units are on the spot.
All survivors were picked up by the steamship "Yuta" shortly after the collision, with the exception of six ratings who escaped from the wreck by means of the Davis submarine escape apparatus between two and four hours later, and were rescued by boats from British warships. Of these it is regretted that two subsequently died and one is in a critical condition. These men were in the fore compartment of the submarine when she sank. I am sure that all Members of the House will wish to associate themselves with the message of heartfelt sympathy which the Admiralty are sending to the bereaved relatives.

Captain HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that the families and the relatives of these men who have lost their lives will be looked after?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The same question was raised two years ago. Inquiries have at once been set on foot as to what are the liabilities of the Government in the matter, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that whatever is possible under the regulations passed by this House will be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILLS REPORTED.

YORK CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

EPSOM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

HACKNEY BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

TROWBRIDGE, MELKSHAM AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

LINDSEY COUNTY COUNCIL (SANDHILLS) BILL.

Reported, with amendments; report to lie upon the table, and to be printed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Hall-Caine, Major Church, Sir William Davison, Major Glyn, Mr. Kedward, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Mr. Lang, Mr. Marjoribanks, Mr. W. S. Morrison, Sir Cooper Rawson, Mr. Richard Russell, Mr. Strauss, Mr. Toole, and Mr. Young; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Alpass, Sir Ernest Bennett, Mr. Bennett, Major Colfox, Mr. Daggar, Captain Gunston, Mr. Herriotts, Mr. Messer, Lady Noel-Buxton, Mr. Ramsay, Colonel Ruggles-Brise, Mr. Scott, Sir Ernest Shepperson, and Mr. Charles Williams.

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Workmen's Compensation Bill,

Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Bill,

Palestine and East Africa Loans Bill, without Amendment.

Southern Railway Bill,

Portsmouth Corporation Bill,

Tamworth Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Second Report of the Select Committee brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 9th June].

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 7.—(Charge of Land Value Tax.)

Amendment proposed [9th June]: In page 5, line 3, at the end, to add the words:
Provided that the tax shall not be charged in respect of any agricultural land constituting or comprised in a land unit so long as such land continues to be used for agricultural purposes only."—[Captain Bourne.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."

Mr. BEAUMONT: I rise to support this Amendment. The Solicitor-General yesterday made, as he always does, a charming and admirable speech. It had only one defect, namely, that it did not deal with the problem raised by the Amendment and so ably explained by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). I was very disappointed, particularly because the Solicitor-General is the only Member on the Government side of the Committee who has made any attempt to explain to us how these schemes are going to work. He has discarded the ridiculous cant about God giving the land to the people. He knows as well as we do that that is merely an attempt to gain divine sanction for a gross and inequitable fallacy. The hon. and learned Gentleman has discarded the travesty of Mohammedan doctrine, that the Creator is great and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is his prophet. He has made an attempt to explain how these taxes are intended to function, but in his speech yesterday he entirely missed the important point with regard to the application of these taxes to agricultural land. What he said would be all right, if agricultural land could suddenly, by some magic process, become ripe for development and if the increased value accrued in one night. Unfortunately it does not. Like all other things that ripen, it ripens slowly and
there is a long intervening period when agricultural land has a somewhat sketchy value over and above its pure value as agricultural land. It is a value very difficult to ascertain, steadily increasing and practically un-realisable, and that is the point to which I wish to address myself.
What is to be the position of land used for agricultural purposes which, owing to its nearness to a town or a main road or for some other cause gets a value definitely in excess of its pure value as agricultural land, which additional value is unrealisable in the open market? Since nothing can be wholly bad, even this vicious tax will have one beneficial effect. I think it will check land speculation, but it will also have the effect of making it even more difficult than it is at present to realise upon land. What is to be the position of a man who owns a farm on a main road? The land along the main road is valued, possibly for building purposes or for widening purposes over and above its value as agricultural land. But if he puts his land into the open market, he can only get its agricultural value and he will be very lucky if he gets that. Is he or is he not to pay this tax, and if not, what is there in the Bill to enable him to get out of it?
What is to be the position of land in absolutely rural areas? I give a concrete case. There is a point at which four roads meet. At that cross roads, on one side or the other—it has not yet been decided which—it is proposed to build some police cottages. The land there has an additional value, but to which of the pieces of land around that cross roads is the additional value to attach and which is going to pay the tax? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has left this matter in the air and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will explain it. There is no such thing as land used for agricultural purposes with no value whatever, over and above its value as agricultural land, and capable of being distinguished from land which is ripe for development. The land of this country which is used for agricultural purposes is in a transition stage. You cannot tell from one year to another, or even from one week to another, how its value is going to change. If it is intended to
exempt agricultural land, then an Amendment such as is now proposed will be necessary. Either all this varying land, the increased value of which very often is never realised, escapes the tax altogether, or else your exemption for agricultural holdings is not worth the paper on which it is written.
We want to know very clearly which is the intention of the Government in this matter. It is not only estates near the towns which are affected; there is the big question of allotments near a road. I can give a case, again in my own constituency, of a large acreage of allotments on a main road extending back from a quarter to half a mile. The road frontage which will comprise the allotments nearest the road may, under this Bill as drafted, have to pay tax, but the backlands may not. Are the people who own the allotments—because there is nothing in the suggestion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) that this tax cannot be passed on, because it can and will be passed on—on the frontage to be charged increased rent for their allotments and the people behind to be left at the same rent? What is to happen?
I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade and the Solicitor-General to clear up the point. There are two conflicting positions. There was the original speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he said that agricultural land was to be exempted, and there was the speech of the learned Solicitor-General last night, in refusing this Amendment, which made it clear that in fact the majority of agricultural land is not to be exempted, because it has an extra value. I appeal to all hon. Members who have anything to do with agricultural constituencies, if this Amendment is not accepted, or if a satisfactory explanation is not given as to how these very real points are to be met, to go into the Lobby for the Amendment as the only possible way of carrying out the Government's pledge not to put a tax on agricultural land.

Lord ERSKINE: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer originally made his speech, I think most agriculturists were reassured because they thought, from his
remarks, that agricultural land was going to be left free from the imposition of this tax, but as these Debates have proceeded and as soon as the Finance Bill was published and the position became clearer, it became obvious that a very large amount of agricultural land or land now used purely for agricultural purposes would come within the purview of this tax. I would like to say a word or two from the point of view of my own constituency. That constituency happens to be near Bristol, and there are two great main roads running through it, one from Bristol to Weston-super-Mare and the other the northern portion of the Bristol-Exeter main road. I suppose that about 30 or 40 miles of pure main roads run through that Division.
There are villages on both those roads all the way along, and the land on each side of those roads is owned, not by large landowners, but by small cultivators and smallholders; in fact, that portion of England is one of the few portions where the old yeoman farmer is still in existence, because he has never been economically knocked out, and you get many hundreds of small, independent owners who have grazing land all along those roads and who, so far as I can see, under this Bill will certainly be called upon to pay a very heavy tax. I do not think anyone, no matter in what quarter of the House he may sit, will say that agriculture to-day is in a flourishing condition. It may be in a better condition in the West Country than it is in the Eastern counties, but whether or not it is flourishing, whether or not the farmer is making money, this tax will come down at the same level.
I was rather horrified to notice some few months ago that 300 acres of land at Haverhill, on the borders of Suffolk and Essex, were sold for the astonishing sum of 4s. an acre. That meant that for cultivation purposes the land was practically useless, and really that it was of no value whatever to the individual who was farming it. I have no doubt that a certain part of that land will, under the Government scheme, be valued as potential building land, and whether or not the farmer is making money, that imposition will be placed upon him. After all, it is an impossible thing to say when land is going to be ripe for building. I know of one case, in 1909, of an estate belonging
to Lord Hastings in Northumberland, where seven or eight acres of land up there was Valued for building purposes at £800 an acre. He protested, but the valuation stood, and as a matter of fact from that day to this not a single house has been built on that property. I think that example shows that the valuation in that case was completely wrong. The land was not worth £800 an acre, and it was simply an arbitrary valuation put on by a valuer. I do not think that anyone will say that if you have had no houses built on that property for 30 years, a valuation of £800 an acre in 1909 was a fair and correct valuation.
The same sort of thing, so far as I am aware, will happen all over the country under the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, because these Government valuers will come along, they will be given a very difficult job, and they are going to put arbitrary values, from which there will be very little appeal, on a great deal of land which really has very little building value at all. I would like to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, as far as I can see from reading the Bill—I may be wrong—the only person who is going to say whether agricultural land is to be valued or not is to be a valuer employed by the Inland Revenue, and I suggest that that is not a proper procedure. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if a tax is to be imposed, it should not be left to a Government official to say whether or not the tax should be paid on a particular portion of land. The law should lay down quite clearly, as I believe it does in the case of all other taxes, whether a tax is chargeable or not, and it is not in these other cases left to the sweet will of a Government official to decide. From whatever point of view you look at these duties, the very fact that a possible tax or "get-off" is left to the sweet will of an individual who is employed by a Government Department is really a very wrong thing for the Government of this country to do.
I would like now to say a word or two about the allotment question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his opening remarks, gave us, quite unintentionally I am sure, rather a false impression about allotments. He said, so far as I remember, that in his view there were more allotments held by public authorities than by private landlords, but the figures that we
have since been able to obtain from the Ministry of Agriculture show that that is a complete delusion, and that, as a matter of fact, a great many more allotments are under private landlords than under public authorities. I quite agree that a great many of these allotments under private landlords may be in the vicinity of villages and not of great towns. Nevertheless, these allotments will have placed upon the area of land which they occupy a heavy duty in the shape of a land tax. Personally, I am certain that the result of this duty on allotments, unless they are exempted, if they are in the hands of private landlords is either going to be that there will be none, or that the rent of the allotments to the allotment holders will rise.
I would like to give an instance of an estate with which I am connected in this matter of allotments—these allotments happen to be outside Brighton—because it is rather an extraordinary story. These allotments, some few years ago, were in the hands of a private landlord, and the allotments were let in the ordinary way.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: At what rental?

Lord ERSKINE: I think £l an acre. [An HON. MEMBER: "A very low rent."] Exactly, but a very large number of allotments are let at a very low 4.0 p.m. rent. This happens to be a case with which I am acquainted. As I said, these allotments were in the hands of a private landlord. The corporation came along and said, "We desire the land on which those allotments stand in order that we may have a housing scheme." The landlord replied," I am quite prepared for you to have the land in another place not very far off, but I do not want to turn out my allotment holders. They have been there a long time, and I do not want to disturb them." However, that argument did not appeal to the corporation, and they said that unless there was a voluntary sale, they would put into operation the Compulsory Purchase Act, whereupon the landlord said, "All right; if you must have this land, you must." Thereupon the area on which these allotments stood was taken over by the corporation, but, for some reason or other, the housing scheme for the moment fell through. What did the corporation do? They continued the allotments to those holders,
but they raised their rent to five times the amount.
As a rule, allotment holders prefer to hold land from a private individual than from a public corporation, for the simple reason that they usually get the allotments at a very much lower rent when held from a private landlord than from a public corporation. As a matter of fact, I rather believe that by Act of Parliament a corporation which holds allotments is bound to charge a rather higher rent than a private landlord because it is supposed to make the allotments pay, but a great many private landlords let allotments round villages and towns because they desire the allotment movement to prosper, and all of us, on every side of the House, desire to see that movement prosper. But I am certain that by passing this Measure the price will be raised to the allotment holders, or you are going to see allotment holders kicked out of their present holdings and made to go a great real further out, where it will be for more inconvenient to carry on their allotments.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: unwittingly, the Noble Lord has omitted a material figure. I understand that in the case he has mentioned the local authority acquired the allotments, but he has not mentioned the figure at which they acquired them.

Lord ERSKINE: I will mention the figure, though, as a matter of fact, it is not strictly relevant to this Debate. It is somewhat astonishing, and shows how the Compulsory Purchase Acts work. When this individual landlord was approached by the corporation about the land, he said, "You can have it at £400 an acre," but the corporation said," No, we do not think that price is a fair one, and we will go to arbitration." They went to arbitration, and the arbitrator gave the landlord £590 an acre. I am, therefore, very glad that the hon. and learned Member interjected his remark, because it has made my case rather stronger.

Mr. KNIGHT: Does the Noble Lord still represent that this land was let at its true value?

Lord ERSKINE: I never said anything of the sort, I said that the land was
used for allotments, and would have continued to be so used, and I should have thought that anyone in this House would have preferred that those allotment holders should continue to hold their allotments there at a normal, reasonable rent. Of course, if the hon. and learned Member desires to see allotment holders driven out of their holdings, and their rent raised, he will, of course, support the Government.

Mr. KNIGHT: I am sure the Noble Lord does not desire to misrepresent me. I was dealing with the point which I understood he was putting, and I was suggesting that this land, which was dealt with as agricultural land, and let at a nominal rent to allotment holders, was, in fact, building land, and exactly the sort of land contemplated in this Bill.

Lord ERSKINE: I really think that I can leave the observation of the hon. and learned Member to the Committee. I "would like to conclude by saying that there must be, and in fact there are, all over this country, in every county, and particularly in Somerset, large numbers of owner-occupiers with small amounts of land which may be said by a Government valuer to have a value in excess of the cultivation value. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his proposals, he gave the impression to many thousands of people that this tax would not be charged on their agricultural land, but it has become quite clear as these proceedings have gone on and as the Bill reads, that this land will be chargeable to this tax. It will be chargeable to the extent of 1d. in the £ on some capital value which some valuer, who may not know the district, may think it has, and I am sure the Government will find, if these proposals go forward, and as these millions of buff forms are sent to these unfortunate people, that they have backed the wrong horse.

Mr. KNIGHT: I venture to intervene because the Noble Lord is such a fair controversialist, and the matter which he put before the Committee did not seem to bear on the question at issue. He was speaking to an Amendment which seeks to exclude from the operation of this tax land which, in his own submission, is not agricultural land. It is perfectly clear that these are matters
which have been under public discussion, to my knowledge, for two or three generations, and they are quite familiar now. No one in this House desires to place any further impediment on the use of agricultural land, but it must be admitted that there are border-line cases where there is extreme difficulty in ascertaining whether or not the land in question has a value in excess of agricultural value, and all that this Bill does is to follow the ordinary, reasonable line which has been advocated in these matters, that where land has a value in excess of agricultural land, that excess value should be within the operation of this Bill. The Noble Lord cited a perfectly familiar case that can be met with in the vicinity of any growing town. The case of Brighton which he mentioned is one that must be familiar to everybody. Land was let to allotment holders at a nominal rent by an owner, who, I assume, with some knowledge of these matters, was an acute gentleman, with an eye to prospective developments. The land had not a sufficiently high value to warrant its sale. He could not obtain the price for the land for building purposes, and he was content to allow the land to be used for allotment purposes.

Lord ERSKINE: When the corporation wanted to buy this land for building, the owner did not want to sell it, because he wanted the allotment holders to remain.

Mr. KNIGHT: I can well understand that the owner of the land, which was used for allotments, desired, for sentimental reasons, to retain the land for that purpose, but the Noble Lord does not seem to appreciate, though I think the Committee does, that in that admission he has given away the whole of his case. His case in supporting this Amendment was that the land in question, which he cited as an illustration, was not land which ought to be brought within the operation of this tax, on the ground that it was not agricultural land. The more this discussion proceeds the clearer it becomes that the land was not agricultural land but building land, and the short question is—it is a matter of controversy, and I merely rose on the spur of the moment—whether land admittedly having a building value could be brought within the operation of this
tax. That is simply a question of fact. The Noble Lord, to my astonishment, queries the work of the valuer. Clearly, the ascertainment must be made by a valuer, and it is extremely unfortunate that the Noble Lord should cast this reflection upon the integrity or honesty of the valuer.

Lord ERSKINE: I never said anything of the sort.

Mr. KNIGHT: I am certain I misunderstood the Noble Lord, but he certainly did let loose an innuendo which suggested that the valuer, whose duty it would be to ascertain the value of this land, might be influenced by other considerations than his duty. It will be the duty of the valuer to ascertain whether this particular parcel of land should be subject to the tax, to ascertain its value, and to find if it has a value in excess of agricultural land. The suggestion is that his duty under this Bill would be to find that value, and report it as the value on which the tax should be levied. If there were any question that the land was agricultural land, everybody here would desire that that land should be withdrawn from the operation of this Bill. That is the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the question of fact has to be ascertained, and in the ascertainment we must trust the valuer. If the valuer's view is not accepted, the person against whom the valuation is made will have his normal right of appeal and he can be heard to show reasons why this value should not be accepted. I think that the Noble Lord has rather exaggerated the difficulties of the case, and we may leave it there.

Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: My first duty will be to congratulate very sincerely the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight). I should not have believed, unless I had heard it from his own lips, that he had, of his own knowledge, experience of two or three generations. Therefore, I wish to congratulate him. I rise to support the Amendment, because it states early in the Bill quite clearly that agricultural land shall be exempt from this new form of taxation. Those of us who represent agricultural constituencies and the interests of agriculture, want to know at once whether we can have an assurance that agriculture will be exempt. I submit that
it is better to accept the Amendment than the rather cumbersome method of Clause 19. The Government and every Member on that side of the Committee are fully aware of the position of British agriculture. The industry is a primary producer and has to sell at the world prices; it is the first to feel the drop in world prices, and the Government know that it cannot bear any increase whatever of taxation.
The Government propose that agriculture, as agriculture, is to be exempt from this taxation. Will this principle of the relief of agriculture from taxation be a fact under this Bill, however? That is our doubt. Farms many miles from villages and long distances from the high road may be exempt under Clause 19, but even in those cases it is possible at some future time that industrial development may take place in those distant areas, and the agricultural land around that development may have an increased potential site value. Therefore, they may not eventually be free from the land tax. A large proportion of agricultural land is not situated long distances from the high roads and villages, however. A great deal is situated adjacent to them, and practically all that land will come under this Bill and will have to submit to taxation.
What is the type of agriculturist who will suffer? The man who will suffer is the smallholder. For many years I was a member of the smallholdings committee of a county council, and had a great deal to do with the settlement of ex-service men on the land. In considering what land would be suitable for the ex-service man and smallholder, we had to consider two factors. One was that the land should be in proximity to a village so that the men would not have far to go; and the second was that it should be close to the highroad so that the men should not have the inconvenience of bringing their produce long distances. These men will all be subject to this tax because they occupy land close to villages and highroads in many cases, in my experience, these smallholders become owners of their land and build their own houses and the buildings on their smallholdings. What is their position to-day? In some cases to my knowledge land on one side of them has been sold for £150
an acre for building. The cultivation value of the smallholding land next to the land which was sold for £150 will not be worth more than £50 an acre. The valuer will be obliged to assess it at £150, and the smallholders will have to submit under this Bill to a tax of a penny in the £ on £100, or 8s. 4d. per acre.
When land is valued for the purpose of this Bill, will that increase the value for Schedule A purposes? Will the Inland Revenue authorities take into consideration for Schedule A purposes the value which is fixed under this Bill? The Government may say that the smallholder does not pay Income Tax at all, and that therefore the Schedule A valuation will not affect him. Have the Government considered this point, however, and I may be a little out of order in asking it: Have they considered the effect of the increase on the Schedule A valuation in connection with the Land Drainage Act which we passed last summer? Under that Act——

The CHAIRMAN: I am obliged to the hon. Member for warning me that he might be out of order. He must be careful.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: My only point is that the precept upon the smallholder under the Land Drainage Act is to be so much in the £ instead of so much per acre, and, if this Bill increases the Schedule A valuation, it will increase the amount he will have to pay for land drainage. Have the Government considered that point? The Solicitor-General Said last night that we are dealing with two values, one of them a cultivation value, and the second a value because the land is ripe for development. He stated:
One is assuming that the genuinely agricultural land which was spoken of by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that is land which only has an agricultural value and nothing more, will be excluded under the Bill as it stands. Therefore, this land which it is now proposed to exclude, in addition to the land with only an agricultural value, must be the land on the outskirts of towns which is still used for agricultural purposes but which is ripe for development. If it is not ripe for development there is no point in the Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1931; col. 954, Vol. 253.]
I suggest that the Solicitor-General is not correct in his view that land has two
values. There is another value in between the cultivation value and the value it has because it is ripe for development; it has a potential value because it might be ripe for development in five, 10 or 20 years' time. Certain land in a certain area may have a cultivation value of £20 per acre, and building land in the vicinity may have a value of £200, but there is a great deal of land in between which may have another value, say, of £100, because it will be possible to develop it in five, 10 or 20 years. Under this Bill, this land will have to pay on that potential value of £100. If you deduct the £20 for cultivation value, the agriculturist occupying the land will have to pay 6s. 8d. per acre for the whole period until the land is ripe for development. Therefore, I submit that under this Bill it is possible and probable that agricultural land will be taxed. In the interests of agriculture, I make an appeal, even at this late stage, to the Chancellor and to the Government to accept this Amendment, which makes the position clear, I ask all hon. Members who are concerned in the industry to join with us in the Division Lobby and to vote, in the interests of British agriculture, that it shall not be subject to a tax of this character.

Mr. BIRD: I should like to pick up one point which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson). He mentioned the possibility of there being factories right out in the middle of the country. In the division which I have the honour to represent, which is one of the largest in the country—60 miles by 40—we have instances of that kind in the beautiful dales. One can motor up the dales and suddenly come across chimneys and a factory, with a little village around. All round that factory are farms, many of them fell farms. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows the district as well as I do, and I can imagine his saying, when motoring up these dales, possibly with the mind of a valuer, "What a beautiful building site!" and feeling how he would like to be there in a little cottage instead of sitting in this House. That may well be the attitude of mind of some of the valuers who have to be trained for the purpose of making the valuations under this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing the Budget, admitted quite frankly that there were
not enough valuers in this country to make the valuations, and that many of them would have to be trained. I am certain that men trained for the special purpose of making valuations under this Bill will not make them on the same rules as the ordinary valuer who has been brought up to the work and done it since he was articled in a surveyor's office.
That is one of the difficulties which a person who is to be taxed will have to contend against. Unless an Amendment which I have on the Paper to put the cost of bad valuations on to the Government is accepted, then if an incompetent surveyor, or, shall we say, a too enthusiastic and optimistic surveyor of the Department, puts too high a value on the land the poor farmer who contests that valuation will have to meet the expense of doing so whether he is liable to pay the tax or not. Along the miles of road running through my division there are many sites which admittedly are marvellous building sites, but there is no demand for them at present. The boards erected advertising "This eligible freehold site for sale, ripe for immediate development," have been up so long that the announcements have become almost illegible. In the mind of the owner the land is ripe for immediate development, but he has found by experience that he cannot get anyone to buy it. [Interruption.] "At his price," says the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Those unfortunate farmers would take almost any price. In many cases they bought their land at an excessive figure, and if they could sell off some of their building frontage to help them to pay their way they would be only too willing to take a reasonable price, any price which would give them some return and help them to reduce their overhead charges.
Here is another point which I should like to put to the Solicitor-General, to see whether it could be regarded as rendering any of the land along those main roads building land or land with something other than a cultivation value. Most of the traffic along those main roads is motor traffic, and at some point or other in the 60 miles most of the cars need petrol, so there are a good many petrol stations. All the land has
to be valued as though all the surrounding area was vacant. The surveyor may say, "This is a good site for a petrol pump," although all the sites for petrol pumps in places where there is likely to be a public demand are already occupied and I should like to have some assurance from the Solicitor-General that when the valuer comes along between Skipton and Settle and says, "I think a petrol pump would do well there," it will be borne in mind that there is a petrol pump at Long Preston and another one at Hellifield, in between.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps): If the hon. Member will not mind my interrupting him, I can tell him now that both those petrol pumps will have to be taken into account—everything that is existing on the neighbouring units in the state in which it is at the date of valuation.

Mr. BIRD: I know that to be the fact, but the point is that in the mind of the valuer there may not be sufficient pumps. Suppose he is going along on the day on which Morecambe holds its fete. Possibly he will find people having to wait at a pump. Possibly the valuer himself is waiting for petrol, and he says, "This is preposterous. Along here there are plenty of vacant sites which would be suitable for petrol pumps." If the Government are honest in their intention to exempt agricultural land it will not hurt them to accept the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend. They ought to take agricultural land out of the Bill altogether, and go so far as to say that it will not be valued, so that the farmer will not be bothered with these buff forms. As a farmer I myself am bothered almost morning, noon and night with forms which have to be filled up, forms dealing with the number of cows, the number of eggs which the chickens have produced and the like. If the farmers could be relieved of only one more form, and one which they will not be able to fill in without expert advice, agricultural Members sitting on these benches will be very grateful, and those among the constituents of hon. Members opposite who are farmers but who do not vote for them will also be grateful.

Colonel LANE FOX: As this Debate goes on the Committee must be more and more convinced that there is a great deal of genuine agricultural land which will have to pay land tax under the proposals of this Bill. All that we ask is that land which is genuinely being used for agricultural purposes should be exempt from that tax. All round our towns are tracts of land which represent a very valuable source of food supply for our great cities. The agriculture carried on there is not a form of agriculture which we want to discourage, rather it is one that we ought to encourage; yet this is the way the Government propose to encourage it! It is not very often that we have had the benefit of the advice and assistance of hon. Members opposite in this Debate, and perhaps after the speech delivered by the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) the Chancellor may not always be very grateful for the assistance when it comes. The hon. and learned Member did succeed in bringing out some valuable additions to the story which the Noble Lord the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Lord Erskine) told about allotments. The hon. and learned Member has been of great service and we ought to be most grateful to him. The immediate result of this taxation will undoubtedly be to cause land which is now used as allotments to be sold for Building purposes, or, if it is retained for allotments, the rent to the allotment holders will have to be increased. The hon. and learned Member assumed that we did not understand that this land had a higher value than its agricultural value. Of course we understood that. That was the whole point of the Noble Lord's story. It is that very fact which is the cause of the grievance we have.
The Government do not realise what an enormous quantity of land there is in the country which cannot be considered ripe for building but which is certainly ripening for building, and for a very long time many pieces of agricultural land may have to bear a tax which it is utterly beyond the capacity of that land to bear, simply because the actual moment for its development has not come along. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that it was his desire to tax dukes. The time may come when we shall find dukes living on allotments,
owing to the taxation which the right hon. Gentleman will have imposed on them; but hon. Members opposite who think they are merely taxing great landlords and great estates are very much behind the times in their ideas. In the last 20 or 30 years large estates have been broken up and land has come more and more into the hands of smaller people, and there is a great deal of advantage in that in many respects. Round the West Biding towns which the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows so well there are many small men producing milk or vegetables or rearing poultry who are certainly nothing in the nature of dukes, and there is no reason why they should have to pay this special tax. A great deal of the genuine agricultural land held by such men will have to pay this tax. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer may realise even now the very serious harm which this may do.
I have always been a scrupulous politician and have been careful to say in my constituency only what I believed to be absolutely true, but, without departing at all from the truth, think of the story I shall be able to tell, in a constituency like mine, in describing the effect of this tax! I have only to explain the situation to the people and point out the risk they run of having to pay the tax when it is imposed two years hence—there is no need to extend myself to the limits which some greater political artists might achieve—in order to raise great unpopularity against the Government. Hon. Members opposite believe this tax will be a tremendous asset to them. I do not know what effect it may have in the town areas—is Gateshead an illustration?—but I know that in any agricultural constituency such a number of small people will have to pay this tax that it will certainly do nothing to help the chances of the Government at the next Election.

Major LEIGHTON: I should like to say a word or two in defence of the country squire. A good deal has been heard about the allotment holder and about the farmer, but nothing has been said about the small country squire and how this tax will hit him. I know that he is not a popular figure amongst hon. Members opposite, he is the man who gets all the kicks, but in the past he has done his job. I would ask the Solicitor-General,
who is going to reply, whether he does not agree from his own family experience that the country squires have done their job properly. When land is valued any bit of land which has water laid on will naturally be put down as a possible building site, although it may not be built upon for years to come. Agricultural land round the little town where I live is worth probably about £70 an acre. Building land there is worth anything from £300 to £350. If we take £70 from that it will leave somewhere about £240, and the tax on that will be £1 per acre. Is that fair or just? I suppose the Solicitor-General will try to make out a good case for a tax of this kind.
There is one other point which has been mentioned, and that is the ease of accommodation land rented, say, by a butcher, which occurs in every little market town. It is true that such land fetches a high rate because it is building land, and the difference between its agricultural and building value will be very large. Either the land will have to be sold immediately, or the owner will ask a higher rent, and who will pay that increase? Why, the butcher will pay it. Therefore, the people pay it, to whom God gave the land. The Government ought not to impose this tax until the land is actually ready for building. To say that agricultural land is exempt from this tax is simply throwing dust into the eyes of the farming community, and I hope that every hon. Member representing an agricultural constituency will rub in that argument.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Speaking last night the Solicitor-General said, that if this Amendment were carried, it would destroy the whole object of the tax. I always thought that the point of a tax was to raise money towards the revenue of the country, but that does not seem to be the object of the Land Value Tax. I think we are quite justified in coming to the conclusion that this tax is intended to be a very large step in the direction of nationalisation. I hope that the Liberal supporters of the Government—who at the moment are completely absent—will realise that in supporting this tax they are supporting the nationalisation of the land. It is true that agricultural land only pays upon the difference between the cultivation value and the value put upon it by the valuer. I take it that if that
difference is under £120 the land will not have to pay the tax. Is that correct?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If that is the sole unit that a certain person owns it will not be subject to the tax, but of course if he owns a number of units it will be taxed.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: There is therefore some agricultural land which will not come under the tax, but, on the other hand, there is a very large amount of agricultural land which is bound to come under the tax, and it is impossible for us to say what will come under the tax and what will not, because the value put upon it by the valuers may be a fancy value. They may say that every yard of land along the main road has a potential value for building purposes, and has a value other than the cultivation value. They may say where land is far away from the road and commands a beautiful view that somebody would like to buy that land and build a house upon it, and therefore it has a potential value above the agricultural value. In such cases the owner would have to pay the tax.
I want to draw the attention of the Government to the case of smallholders near towns. A smallholder renting from a county agricultural committee is in a more fortunate position than a smallholder who has bought his land, because the latter would have to pay the tax, and I think that is very unfair. We all wish to encourage smallholders. Members of the party opposite talk about giving security of tenure, but the most secure tenure you can give is to allow a man to own his land. In the case I have mentioned the man has bought his own land. Therefore, he will have to pay this extra tax, which is not paid by his neighbour simply because in the case of his neighbour the land is owned by the county council. I do not think a man in that position ought to be handicapped in that way.
What is going to happen under the Town and Country Planning Bill? Under the Act of 1927 the local authorities can recover charges for betterment against the owners, and they can charge the owner with expenditure on improvements. In the case of agricultural land the charge does not have to be paid at once but the interest on it accumulates.
The unfortunate owner occupier is charged with betterment and with the value of improvements which are made without his consent and in addition he has also to pay land tax on the increased value caused by those improvements. Surely no one will contend that that is fair. This particular Amendment would ensure that agricultural land would not have to pay a tax, and, if the Government are sincere in their statement that they wish to relieve agricultural land of this tax, they will accept the Amendment, and I hope the Committee will carry it.

Mr. TURTON: If the Government do not desire to add any impediment to the use of land for agriculture, they ought to accept this Amendment. I do not know how many hon. Members on the Government side are taking an interest in this question, but I notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) was so busy with his notes that he had not time to applaud the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight). If the Government have any doubt as to the effect of their proposals in regard to agricultural land, they will have an opportunity of accepting this Amendment. If they do not want to tax agricultural land, qua agricultural land, they will be able to accept either this Amendment or alter their Bill in order that they may achieve the same result.
The harshness of the Government proposal will be felt especially by owner-occupiers around towns. I agree that there are districts all over the country where factories may be built, but the hardship will occur around towns like York, where the propinquity of the people of York has advanced the value of agricultural land. Many men in the boom period of 1918 bought their land and took up farming hoping that after the War they would be able to settle down on the land that was going to be given to the heroes to enable them to earn a modest income for the rest of their lives. They did not settle on the land thinking that one day they would be able to sell it to the building speculator. They settled on the land for their own domestic happiness, and for the advantage of the agricultural industry. The Government by this Clause are going
to put upon them a tax in addition to the very heavy taxation that they are now bearing, and the very heavy losses that they have sustained owing to the depreciation of their investments and the lowering of agricultural prices. That is the gravamen of this Bill.
I listened with great attention to the very clear speech of the Solicitor-General to find out how he would deal with cases where the land has an enhanced value owing to its nearness to a town. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) adduced examples yesterday very similar to the one I have given, and I will quote the reply which was given by the Solicitor-General to those instances. The Solicitor-General said:
They must therefore have paid for land for agricultural purposes as least as high a price as the builder was prepared to pay for building purposes, otherwise they would never have succeeded in snatching the land from the builders. If that be so, there is no excess building value of the land over the value for agricultural purposes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June, 1931: col. 865, Vol. 253.]
Does the Solicitor-General mean by that that the cultivation value, which is the value of the land for agricultural purposes, will be the same value that these men have been forced to pay owing to the competition with the building trade? So far as I read the Clause, I draw the contrary conclusion. The cultivation value, so far as I can understand it, is a notional assessment of what the land would be valued at if only the farmers were competing for that land. In other words, the ex-service man who bought his smallholding in 1018 would be assessed by the Government valuer at the price of his land if the land could only be purchased by fanners and not by builders. The difference in price is enormous, and never was so enormous as it is at the present day. The cultivation value, owing to the policy of the Government towards agriculture, must be extraordinarily low. Perhaps the most anomalous position under this Bill is that when farming is doing badly and when farmers are finding it very hard to pay wages, and keep on with their farming, then the land tax will be heavier than when farming is doing well, because cultivation value diminishes while their land value is increasing as the town grows and as the
demand of the builders come nearer to the agricultural land.
I think there is a certain amount of misunderstanding as to what land is going to be assessed to this tax. From what I could understand of 5.0 p.m. the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight), he appeared to assume that only land that is ripe for building would be assessed. I have had green apples and I have had ripe apples, and I have also had apples that were rather like the curate's egg, in that they were not quite ripe and yet not too green to be fatal if you ate them. It is land of that type that will be most grievously hit under this Bill. It is very hard to say when land is ripe for development. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Bird) told us about land that appeared to be too ripe. The valuer, however—a man who will have had no previous experience in this valuation—will have to decide what land is ripe for development in the sense that it has an enhanced value owing to the nearness of a town.
There are two points on which I would ask for a reply from either the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General. The first is as to the position of agricultural land which is not held by an owner-occupier. As the Solicitor-General knows, you cannot sell land that you have let to a tenant. You have first to give him 12 months' notice. Therefore, the assessment of such land according to the amount of fee simple with vacant possession, as provided in the Bill, is a purely notional assessment. A landlord cannot sell such land without giving his tenant 12 months' notice to quit, under Section 25 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, and if he gives his tenant 12 months' notice to quit and then tries to sell the land, that notice to quit is null and void under the next Section. What is the position, then, of this agricultural land? The argument put forward from the other side is that the landlord is holding up this land which might be used for building purposes—I am putting the argument as high and as fairly as I can; but this land is not being held up if it is let on a year-to-year tenancy for agricultural purposes, because, under the Agricultural Holdings Act, the farmer
must be given 12 months' notice, and, if he is given 12 months' notice, the owner cannot enter into a contract of sale, because that contract of sale will be null and void. The only way in which the landlord could get out of it would be to enter into possession of the land himself, and at the end of the time to put it up for sale. If this be so, such land should be differently assessed from land that is free and can be sold at any time that the owner wishes. I ask this question because I have considered the First Schedule, which deals with the question of restrictions on user, and I would submit to the Solicitor-General that those provisions as to restrictions on user will not apply to the case of land under the Agricultural Holdings Act.
My second point relates to tithe. There is no burden at the present moment, except land tax, that is so grievous to agriculture as tithe. In my constituency there are cases in which tithe goes up to, I believe, 5s. an acre. Under the Bill, this tithe is to be excluded from consideration in valuing the land, but you get a false value if you exclude the tithe. Anyone who wished to buy that land would take into consideration the value of the tithe at 5s. an acre, and, even although the land had a building value, the price offered for it would be lowered by the capitalised value of that 5s. an acre. The Government, however, under their Bill, say that the land value is to be taken into consideration with the tithe excluded, and, therefore, the value arrived at would be higher. To my mind, it is iniquitous that a tithe-payer who is heavily burdened with tithe should be even more greviously burdened by the provisions of this Measure than the man next door upon whose land there is no tithe.
There is one type of agricultural land, of which there are a few instances, which has not been mentioned, and which I think it would be appropriate to mention now. Round all the large towns in agricultural districts there are show grounds which are used, when shows are not being held, for agricultural purposes. One grazes sheep on them and keeps them right for the agricultural shows that take place at this time of the year. These show grounds, being near towns, will have a high building value, and, if a tax is
put upon them, it will penalise the farmers who wish to show their products. I have always understood that the Ministry of Agriculture has been very clement towards show grounds, believing that they do a great deal of good for the industry by teaching the farmer how to grow better crops and products, and by stimulating competition among farmers to produce products of a good type.
These show grounds, at the present time, are in very difficult circumstances. In my constituency many shows cannot be held now because the farmers are so badly off that they cannot contribute towards them. The show grounds are also badly off because of late years shows have been making losses, and the funds of many of the agricultural societies are at a very low ebb. I would ask the Solicitor-General as this stage, even if he refuses this Amendment, to give us some help in the matter of show grounds. We do not want to build upon show grounds, and yet they cannot, in these country districts, be town-planned, as I believe the Solicitor-General said the Oxford colleges could put their college quadrangles into a town-planning scheme. These show grounds, although they have a high building value, are under no statutory restriction upon user.
Under this Bill very many questions will arise throughout the country on which farmers will be penalised heavily, and the simplest way out would be to accept this Amendment and give the farmers a rest from the very anxious task of computing the difference between land value and cultivation value. That computation will benefit nobody, and it will cost the salaries of a large number of officials for the purpose of these mathematical calculations. If land usually used for agricultural purposes is excluded, it will save a great deal of bother and will give at least some small measure of relief to the industry of agriculture.

Viscount WOLMER: I think the Committee is entitled to some further reply from the Government beyond the very charming and eloquent speech of the Solicitor-General last night, which, with all respect, I venture to say wholly failed to deal with the very strong case brought forward by my hon. Friends. This Debate has shown the difficulties into which the Government have got by adopting the plan of campaign which the Chancellor
of the Exchequer confided to us on the 4th May, when he told us that he was going to base his estimate on a valuation which would he simple and direct and would avoid the complexities of the Bill of 1909. We are beginning to find that the Bill of 1909 had to be complex because we are dealing with a very complex subject. The matter is not anything like as simple as hon. Members opposite have been all too ready to assume from the beginning, and the rough and ready rules which they have tried to apply and have embodied in this Bill are found to have no relation to the facts of the problem with which the House will have to deal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his opening statement, at any rate, gave the impression to the country that it was not the intention of the Government to tax agricultural land under this Bill, and I myself heard the Minister of Agriculture make a speech in the country in which he also gave that impression. But, when we come to examine the Bill itself, we find that exactly the contrary is the ease.
The Solicitor-General had a very simple answer to our criticism. In effect, he tried to present us with a dilemma. In his mind, all land is either agricultural land or land ripe for building purposes. It is either black or it is white; either it pays the tax or it does not. If it is land with no building value, it is land which is not ripe for development, and it is to be excluded from the tax altogether. One would imagine that the Solicitor-General had never been for a walk in the country outside a town in his life. His speech was the speech of a man who appeared to be living in a different world, absolutely divorced from the facts of the case; but the formula with which he provided his followers was apparently good enough for the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight), who made such an interesting intervention in the Debate a short time ago. But even the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham admitted that there might be borderline cases. The trouble is, however, that the borderline is about 40 miles wide round every big town in this country, and the result is that there are millions of acres of which at would be impassible to say that they had not some sort of building value.
The Committee must remember that this value is to be assessed by the Government valuer, against whom we make no charge of bias, but whose infallibility we must certainly question. It is impossible for him to say with certainty in what direction building development is going to take place during the next few years. He has to judge on a probability of chances, and in thousands of cases it will be impossible for him to say that such and such a piece of land has no potential building value. But, the moment that land is held to have a potential building value, it becomes liable to the tax under this Bill. The case given by my Noble Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Lord Erskine) was a very typical as well as a very striking one, and I venture to say that there will be thousands of such cases, where land which is being farmed, and which very probably has been farmed by father and son for generations, will be held to have a potential building value of £300 or £400 an acre, and the farmer will be taxed upon that.
I should like to ask the Solicitor-General what the cultivation value is going to be. In the Bill there is a definition of the cultivation value which leaves it to the valuer to say, as I read the Bill—no doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong—what sort of agricultural rent he thinks the land would be likely to make, regarded purely from an agricultural point of view. We all know that there is a very great difference in agricultural rents. Land in Lincolnshire fetches a rent of £2, £3, or even more per acre. Land in Essex, because it is poorer land—less fertile soil—fetches a rent of 15s. or 10s. an acre. The result of that would be that, if a piece of land which has a potential building value happens to be in Lincolnshire, where it has a high cultivation value, it will pay less duty than poor land in Essex with a low cultivation value, so that the Lincolnshire farmer, who is the more prosperous of the two, wall be less taxed than the Essex farmer, who is going through a particularly difficult time.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: If I might interrupt my Noble Friend, I should like to say, as a Member from Lincolnshire, that most Lincolnshire farmers are certainly not prosperous.

Viscount WOLMER: I quite agree with my hon. Friend, but Lincolnshire has a different standard of prosperity from Essex and, if you want to see the direst straits of agricultural distress, you will probably find them in such counties as Essex and Suffolk. The case which the Government have to meet, and which up to now they have made no attempt to meet, is that there is a broad belt of strictly agricultural land round every one of our towns and great cities which has always been treated as agricultural land and has been farmed by generation after generation, often of the same families, who could in no way be said to be building speculators. They are as much farmers as any farmer in the country, and yet it will be impossible to say of any one of these farms that it has not a building value in excess of its cultivation value. That is not an isolated case. It is not a rare case. I believe it will be found to apply to the great bulk of agricultural land. If you draw a belt of 40 miles round every great city in Great Britain, there is very little land in these islands that is left outside, and the great bulk of the agricultural land will be liable to pay this tax.
It is not only the big farmers who will have to pay, but the smallholders and the allotment holders as well. One of the essential factors in the success of a smallholding settlement is that it should be near a good market, and 90 per cent. of them are within a comparatively short distance of some big town. They are going to be brought within the category of agricultural land which will be subject to this extra tax. I do not know if hon. Members opposite have any idea of the number of people who are going to be taxed in this fashion. We had a very interesting statement from the Minister of Agriculture on Monday on the subject. The total number of holdings between one acre and 50 acres in England and Wales is practically 255,000 and 26,000 are in the ownership of some public authority. Therefore, you have about 228,000 smallholdings the great majority of which will be brought under the special taxation imposed by the Bill. When the Government were trying to draft their valuation on a simple and direct basis without the complexity of the 1909 Bill, they entirely forgot to face this real problem which has emerged. When you come to allotments, you find the case
is even stronger. It is clear from the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 4th May that he had no conception what the Bill was going to do to the allotments, that he was grossly ignorant of the facts and that the case of allotments really had not been considered by the Government at all. This is what he said:
If these allotments belonged to the local authorities—and most of them do—they would not be taxed upon any excess value.
The facts were given by the Minister of Agriculture on Monday:
The number of allotments on land owned by local authorities on the 31st December, 1930, was 207,846, the area being 25,800 acres. The number on land owned by private persons was 739,087 on an area of 116,145 acres."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th June, 1931; col. 612. Vol. 253.]

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: A number of them are owned by the allotment holders themselves.

Viscount WOLMER: That will not stop them from being taxed. If the Government valuer can prove that the excess value of the total holding of any one person is more than £120, that land will be subject to tax. In the case of allotments particularly, a great many of them are at the very edge of towns. One thing we try to do in making an allotment scheme is to get them as close to the men's houses and work as we can. But that land is all land of a high building value, very likely £500 or £600 an acre. Therefore, you may have a very small allotment and yet go beyond this £120. The cultivation value that is going to be deducted from the land value is a minute sum in the present depressed state of agriculture. It is constantly dwindling and, therefore, you will not be taking at the most more than £50 or £60 an acre, even if that, from allotments close to the town when you are making the deduction. Therefore, the net result of these taxes must be that the great majority of the 739,000 allotment holders will have to pay them, and the great majority of the 254,000 smallholders will have to pay them. In addition to that, the ordinary farmers who are pursuing the industry of agriculture on their family farms in the greater part of England will be called upon to pay this tax.

Mr. B. RILEY: It is not the allotment holders or the smallholders, but the owners.

Viscount WOLMER: However much the average owner may be anxious to further the smallholdings' movement or the allotment movement, or to give good terms to his farm tenants—and most landowners are—if the party opposite claps a special tax upon him, the inevitable result in the present economic circumstances will be that the tax will have to be passed on to the men who are cultivating the soil.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I had at my home an allotment of a fourteenth of an acre for which I paid £2, or at the rate of £28 an acre. Surely the owner could well afford to pay the proposed tax.

Viscount WOLMER: In that case the owner would have been entitled to ask the hon. Member to bear his share of that taxation. This tax is going to be put on the farming industry. After listening to the Debate, I am beginning to understand what hon. Members meant at the last election when they said farming was to be made to pay. Farming is going to be made to pay the tax in all these cases that I have mentioned. That is a perfectly cruel and unnecessary burden to inflict upon agriculture. The Government record in regard to agriculture has been throughout a most cynical disregard of pledges. They have not lifted a little finger to help the struggling farmers in a time of unparalleled depression. They have done nothing to assist them in their conflict against unfair foreign competition. The effect of the Bill is to put a new and special tax on what, I believe, will be found to be the great bulk of the farms of the country. It is all nonsense to say that this is not an agricultural question. It is going to be a burning agricultural question.
I am very much surprised that the Minister of Agriculture is not here. If he had been, we should have asked him why he had not fought harder for the farmers when the Bill was being drafted. The only reason the Solicitor-General gave why the Amendment should not be accepted was that, in his opinion, it would make the tax unworkable. If that is the considered opinion of one of the Law Officers of the Crown, it is a very strong
condemnation of the tax altogether. If it is physically impossible for the most brilliant brains in the Government so to draft a Bill which is supposed to tax land values without dealing this very serious and damaging blow at agriculture, it shows' what an unpractical form of taxation it is, and that it violates all the canons of sound taxation in that it hits an industry which you do not intend to hit, and does damage where damage can least be borne.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: May I first correct an impression which seems to have been in the mind of some right hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said when he introduced his Resolution with regard to the Land Value Tax? Nothing can be more clear or precise than the statement he then made as regards agricultural land. I really am in a difficulty in understanding how any hon. Member opposite who either heard it or read it can possibly have mistaken his intention. Let me read the passage again:
I do not propose that the tax should apply to agricultural land as long as it has no higher value than its value for agricultural purposes. Why? an hon. Member opposite asks. Because it is not worth while, because it would probably cost more than the effort is worth. Of course if during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill hon. Members opposite who appear to be disappointed that agricultural land is not to be taxed, propose such an Amendment, I shall be very sympathetic to it. Where agricultural land has a higher value than its agricultural value, its cultivation value, it will be subject to the tax, but only on the excess of the value over its agricultural value. In short, purely agricultural value of agricultural land will be exempt from the new charge. That applies to allotments and market gardens, except in so far as they may have a ripening or a ripened building value."—[OFFICIAI. REPORT, 4th May, 1931; col. 52, Vol. 252.]
I do not think it is quite fair to accuse the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of that very explicit statement, of having misled either hon. Members opposite or the country as regards his intentions in respect of agricultural land values.
I will deal with one or two of the more salient points without trying to go through the seven or eight pages of questions which have been put to me in the course of the afternoon. I think that one of the difficulties which arises
in the minds of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they take an assumption that there is going to be some special way of valuing agricultural land as if each piece of the agricultural land valued were the only piece available for building in the country. One or two hon. Members who have spoken have made that assumption in dealing with particular instances. The actual facts are, of course, that in going to any particular district the valuer will look round to see what units there are upon a site, and will then go to each unit, which will be the unit of occupation. In the vast majority of cases, in an agricultural district it will be the farm of 100, 500 or 1,000 acres or whatever it may be, and he will then put a value upon that unit as a unit. The number of cases in which such a unit will have any value other than its cultivation value will, I am advised, be very small once one gets outside the immediate purviews of the larger towns.

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: How far are the purviews?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and learned Member asks how far are the purviews. Which town? The purviews of London, no doubt, will probably reach out as far as Uxbridge, and perhaps even further. It is one of the instances where there is, as everybody knows, a large quantity of land all round London which has some ripening or ripened building value in regard to each unit. There is no question about it. There is another thing which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite also forget with regard to this matter. Agricultural land, when you include market gardens and allotments, has a very much higher value if it is near towns than it has if it is far away from towns. Anyone who has had any experience in London, for instance, of market gardens situated in the Essex district round where Dagenham is now built, will know what extraordinarily high prices are paid there for land for market garden purposes. Owing to its propinquity to large towns, and owing to the special dampness of the soil, there was a very high agricultural value, and one must set against any prospective or
ripening building value that high agricultural value where you have allotments with propinquity of markets and extra means of transport, and so on, which add both to the agricultural value and to the building value.

Sir GEORGE PENNY: Does that obtain all over the country?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Naturally, I am not suggesting that it obtains all over the country. Everyone will realise that the price of agricultural land varies very much according to what facilities are being served, but one must not assume that the facilities are there for the purpose of building land and not there for the purpose of agricultural land. They are on both sides of the equation.

Mr. BEAUMONT: How does that apply to land which my hon. Friend suggested, the really bad agricultural land? How does it apply in cases like that?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am sorry that I cannot answer the question specifically because I do not know anything about the value of land in that particular part of the country.

Mr. BEAUMONT: It is not far from you.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid it is rather a long way off, because I come from between Gloucester and Oxford. It is rather a long way off, and although I have often passed through it, I have never had any cases of valuation there that I am aware of. There may be cases there where agricultural value is low and where there is a high prospective building value. I am not suggesting there will not be such cases. There will be such cases. I am suggesting that the statement of the Noble Lord, that it will apply to the majority of agricultural land in this country, is wholly fallacious and a gross exaggeration of the case. The object of the Amendment is to cut out land, not because of its value but because of its user. I do not think that the Noble Lord repeated quite accurately what I said yesterday. What I said was, not that a Bill should not be drawn to make this exclusion, but that a Bill so drawn would be valueless for the purposes of taxation of land values, because it would exclude everything except the built-up
land. It would exclude all the ripening and ripened land that had not got buildings upon it. That, as I stated yesterday, was the one case which even hon. Members opposite had suggested at an earlier stage there might be some cause for taxing.

The question that next arises is with regard to town planning, and I will deal with that generally. The present position as regards town planning is, that when the present Bill goes through Parliament, it will be possible to town plan the whole of the country. There is no question of not being able to town plan rural districts or small country towns which hon. Members suggested could not be town planned. There is, moreover, provision in the Town and Country Planning Bill which makes it possible for any owner of land to enter into an undertaking with a local authority as regards the use of his land. When an undertaking is so given, it becomes binding on the land, and therefore will be an encumbrance which will be within the purview of Schedule I of the present Bill. That provides means for anyone who desires to do so to go to the local authority and say, "I want to continue using this land as allotments, or as farm land or as anything else. I will give you an undertaking that it shall not be used for any other purpose." If the local authority are willing to accept that undertaking, then that fact will have to be taken into account in the valuation of the land. It will afford a perfectly efficient means for any owner who wishes it to put it out of his own power to make a large profit by selling it as building land, and at the same time avoid having to pay the tax.

Sir T. INSKIP: Will that apply to land in respect of which there is a variation or revocation of a town planning scheme either by the local authority or by the Minister?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The present form of the Clause is that anybody who has passed a resolution to make a town planning scheme may accept such an undertaking. There is a proposal, I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, to extend that to any local authority which has power to make a resolution. It appears from the present form of the Bill that it might be necessary to wait
until after the resolution has been made. The proposal now is to give any local authority which has power to make a resolution power to accept such an undertaking, and if that undertaking is once accepted whatever happens afterwards will be immaterial.

Sir T. INSKIP: This matter is of some little importance in connection with the Town and Country Planning Bill. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are Clauses in the Bill which give very wide powers of revocation and variation of a town planning scheme. The hon. and learned Gentleman, I am sure, is not suggesting that the undertaking given as to the use of land in connection with a pending or an approved scheme will stand for all purposes as affecting that land even when a scheme has gone by the board already. I refer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's great knowledge of that Bill, and I suggest that that cannot be the position.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think that I am right in saying that it will be the position provided, of course, the local authority does not release the undertaking. If the local authority desires to release an undertaking, there may be some circumstances in which it can be done. The hon. and learned Member will appreciate the reason for it. It was an attempt by the London County Council in a case not very long ago to enforce restrictive powers, and owing to the local authority having no power in the land, it was held that they could not enforce. The Clause has been put into the Town and Country Planning Bill so as to give, in such cases, the local authorities power, where an owner had given an undertaking, to enforce it against a subsequent purchaser. That power will enable anybody who desires that their land should be devoted to a particular purpose and should remain devoted to that purpose to give that undertaking, and that undertaking will then have to be taken into account by a valuer. I am not suggesting that if someone gives an undertaking, say for five years, if local authorities will accept it, that certain land will not be used for anything except allotments, that that would entirely destroy the value. It would mean that the prospective building
value would be deferred for five years according to the principles of valuation. But if the undertaking were given for a period of 20 years or more, that, strictly speaking, would wipe out any element of building value and would reduce the value of the land simply to allotment value, and then its cultivation value as allotments would be equal to the land valued under Clause 8 of the Bill.

Mr. TURTON: Will that refer to agricultural show grounds, race courses and golf courses?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I cannot say whether local authorities will accept undertakings with regard to race-courses. I should think that it is extremely unlikely. That would not be in order to advance town planning, but in order to avoid land tax. Where it is a case of local authorities making it desirable to have allotments or open spaces and things of that sort, I do not know whether they will accept undertakings, but one imagines that they would be only too pleased to accept undertakings from people who did not wish to develop their land. Certainly, I should think that with regard to agricultural show grounds, they would probably be prepared to accept such undertakings.
I will proceed to deal with one or two of the other points to which reference has been made. A suggestion was made with regard to the Yorkshire dales by the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Bird) that a good many of them would provide admirable building sites for bungalows, and that if the valuer came along he would say, "Here is a nice spot for a bungalow. I will put on it a building value." That, again, is a complete fallacy with regard to the principle upon which the valuer works. He goes into a Yorkshire dale and saye that in the past 10 years 10 bungalows have been built. He also says that the probable average of building is one bungalow a year. He looks at the 1,000 acres or so which he is valuing, and asks, "Does it add anything to the value of the 1,000 acres if there is the prospect of one bungarlow a year being built?" The answer is "No." Therefore, it really is not making any proper test in consequence of this provision by taking isolated instances which never can
occur, and which really are contrary to all the practice of valuation.
The hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) raised the question of betterment under the Town and Country Planning Bill; With regard to betterment, he said that the betterment value will be taken away from the land and will then be taxed. I think the hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that the whole principle of betterment is that it adds to the value of the land, not that it is taken away but that the land gets extra value by reason of the betterment. That additional value, which I am sure the hon. and gallant Member had in mind, is charged against the owner of the land in the form of betterment. It really does not matter whether the man pays for his land to the local authority in betterment or to the private owner from whom he bought it. It is all part of the purchase price of the land as it eventuates, and there is no distinction between that betterment part of the purchase price and the ordinary part of the purchase price. They are both parts of the purchase price of the ultimate unit of land, and for that reason there is no distinction made.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: But he has to pay land tax on the improved value, from which he does not get any benefit.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Ex hypothesi the land is bettered. That is why it is called betterment. He buys the land and he is taxed on the bettered value of the land. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the land is worth £100 an acre. A road is made through the land, and it is decided by the arbitrator that the land has been improved, in consequence, by £20 an acre. The value of the land before the betterment is arrived at is £100 an acre. The sum of £100 was paid to the original seller of the land and £20 is paid to the local authority in betterment. They are both parts of the purchase price of a land unit which is then worth £120. There is no distinction whatsoever in regard to the portion which is paid to the local authority for increasing the value of the land or the portion which was paid to the original vendor of the land when it was bought.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: He gets no advantage from the betterment
which has been caused by the local authority, but he has to pay land tax on the increased value.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid that we are at cross-purposes. The advantage he gets is that next day he sells the land for £120 an acre. [HON. MEMBERS: "What if he cannot? "] If he cannot, then the valuation has been made badly upon which he has paid the betterment.

Viscount CRANBORNE: It is a fact that he has to pay £20 straight back to the local authority, and he gets only £100 himself while he is taxed on £120.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Let me make myself more specific and clear. It may be my fault in explaining the matter badly to the Committee. Let me say that "A" purchases property from "B" and pays him £100. The local authority then come along and make a road through "A's" land. There is an issue as to whether there is any betterment, and the arbitrator decides that when the road has gone through, the land is worth £120. Therefore, the betterment is £20. If it is not agricultural land, the £20 is levied at once, but if it is agricultural land it becomes a charge upon the land which is not payable at once. In either case, immediately the road has gone through "A's" land he possesses land which is estimated to be worth £120 and for which he has paid £100 to the original seller, "B," and £20 to the local authority in betterment. Hon. Members opposite say: "If he can sell it." The whole assumption of the valuation at £120 is that it is for a sale.

HON. MEMBERS: Assumption!

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: The local authority takes £20.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Certainly they do, in just the same way as the contractor who put up a house on the land would take money for the cost of building the house. I am very sorry if I have not made myself clear to the hon. and gallant Member. Perhaps it is my fault in trying to explain the matter to him. Another case was put forward by the Noble Lord the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Lord Erskine) as regards land that had been let for allotments close, I think he said, to Brighton. That
land was ultimately sold at the high price of £590 an acre. As regards that land, I am not quite clear what the Noble Lord suggested would have been the alternative to the letting of it for allotments. Let me assume that the Noble Lord's friend was disgruntled by the Land Tax, which I am sure he would not be, and as a result he said "I am not going to let this land any longer for allotments." What is the alternative? He has either to sell it for building or to leave it vacant. Clearly, if he is outside a lunatic asylum he will not leave it vacant. He will at least obtain the benefit of the cultivation value, and therefore he will let it for allotments.

Lord ERSKINE: The answer is that he will let it for building and kick his allotment holders out.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am obliged to the Noble Lord. I thought that was the answer. The result of that is that that particular piece of land will come into the market as building land.

Lord ERSKINE: Yes, and the allotment holders will go out.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: One cannot talk about the effect of a Land Tax on a particular piece of land or a particular class of land. The question is not that, but what is the effect on the country as a whole. The Noble Lord, or some other hon. Member opposite, admitted that one of the effects of the Land Tax would certainly be to reduce the price of land. The example which the Noble Lord has given illustrates that fact admirably. If that land is thrown on to the market—I assume that the Noble Lord's friend is not the only one in that position—obviously the market will have much more supply of land than there is demand, unless you are going to assume that, suddenly, all the builders in the country, as the result of the Land Tax—which the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) told us was not the case—would clamour for land. If the result of the Land Tax is going to be to throw vast quantities of land into the market, then it will have the very desirable effect of cheapening land, which is very much needed, especially in the vicinity of towns.

Lord ERSKINE: Will the Solicitor-General explain exactly how that will be,
when the same type of tax as this on undeveloped land stopped all building in 1909?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It was not the same type of tax. It was a tax which was payable upon the realisation of the sale price. People did not want to sell, because they thought that they would be liable to the tax if they did so. They had a very natural reluctance to sell and they withheld their land. I do not think that I should be justified in detaining the Committee any longer by going through other questions that have been asked me. I hope that I have made it sufficiently clear that there is a real and solid case for not excluding all land used for agricultural purposes and that, in the circumstances, we cannot accept the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I am in the position of being interested in allotment land contiguous to London. I refer particularly to Dulwich. There, we have a considerable amount of land which is let for allotment purposes and has been in the occupation of the allotment holders for many years. According to the statement of the Solicitor-General, there is to be no consideration in any shape or form given——

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: In order that we may hear the hon. and gallant Member, may we ask hon. Members opposite to be a little quieter?

Sir F. HALL: As a rule I am able to make myself heard. It is the first time that it has ever been suggested that I have not spoken sufficiently loud to enable hon. Members opposite to hear me. I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for the attention that he is desirous to pay to what I have to say. I am particularly interested in the question of allotments around London. The Estates Governors of Dulwich, who are among the largest private owners of land in the vicinity of London, own a large amount of land in the vicinity of Dulwich, and the whole of the income from the property is used for two purposes, A certain amount is used for a small number of eleemosynary pensions, and the balance is used for the education of students from various institutions in and about London. To-day, Dulwich College
educates over 3,000 pupils. The money is obtained from the properties which have been built there. It would be inadvisable, and I should not be allowed, to go into the general question of the detrimental effect which the proposed tax will have upon an institution of that nature, but it is important to note that the tax is to be imposed on land which has a ripened or a ripening building value.
For many years the Estates Governors of Dulwich have been utilising land for the benefit of smallholdings and allotment holders. What is going to happen? I am not going to suggest that the income that is received is anything like the value of the land itself. If the proposed tax is placed upon that land, which has not been built upon because it has been held for the benefit of the allotment holders, I can well understand, having regard to the manner in which the money is utilised, that the Dulwich estates authorities will have to consider whether they are going to be taxed on that land, of a ripening or ripened value, and whether it will be necessary, in the ordinary course of events, for them to say to the allotment holders: "You have been allotment holders for 25 or 30 years but, owing to the action of the Government in imposing a heavy burden of taxation upon the land, we are compelled to ask you to clear off the land. It is going to be valued in such a way that we cannot allow it to continue as allotments." At the present time the land to which I am referring is let for £10, £12 or £14 an acre. Although it is used for the purpose of benefiting the health of the people living in and about that part of London, if the land is to be valued for the purposes of the land tax and regarded as ripened land, or as land ripening for building purposes, it may, perhaps, be valued at something in the neighbourhood of £500, £600 or £700 an acre. The result will be that 6.0 p.m. the authorities will not be able to continue to allow this land to be used as allotments. You are going to cancel forthwith and immediately all the advantages which these allotment holders have had for many years past. Surely that is not the desire or intention of the Government. We have always been told that their policy is to help allotment holders. I have heard statement after statement from the Minister
of Agriculture to the effect that they wanted to do all they possibly could to increase the number of smallholdings, but this tax will have the effect of getting rid of these small allotments. I trust that the Government will give very careful consideration to the points which have been put so conclusively and so pungently before the Committee this afternoon and will reconsider this matter, especially in its relation to such properties as I have indicated.
We are entitled to a plain statement from the Government as to whether it is their intention and their desire to do away with allotments so that the country may know that a Socialist Government, who have always advocated the setting up of small allotments, the moment they have the opportunity, bring forward legislation which will not allow owners of land to give the assistance they have given in the past in the provision of allotments. I did not notice during

the election at Gateshead that the Prime Minister in his letter to the new Member drew attention to the results which were likely to happen on the passing of this Measure. Why? The Prime Minister knows that the more the people consider the effect of the land tax the more inclined they are to oppose any such Measure. I am not one of those who flirts with any proposal to tax increment value in any shape or form; I am bitterly opposed to any form of land taxation. The Government have gone out of their way to place difficulties in the way of those who are desirous of remaining on the land, and in the way of owners of land who desire to do what they can for smallholdings and allotments. I hope they will be able to give some consideration to the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 276.

Division No. 290.]
AYES.
[6.6 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Colman, N. C. D.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Albery, Irving James
Colville, Major D. J.
Haslam, Henry C.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Cooper, A. Duff
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfred W.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cowan, D. M.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Astor, Viscountess
Cranborne, Viscount
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Atholl, Duchess of
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Atkinson, C.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Baillie-Hamilton. Hon. Charles W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cunliffe- Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hurd, Percy A.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Balniel, Lord
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Inksip, Sir Thomas


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Iveagh, Countess of


Beaumont, M. W.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent. Ashford)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Knox, Sir Alfred


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Bird, Ernest Roy
England, Colonel A.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston s-M.)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Boyce, Leslie
Ferguson, Sir John
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bracken, B.
Fielden, E. B.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Briscoe, Richard George
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Lymington, Viscount


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Buchan, John
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Butler, R. A.
Gower, Sir Robert
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Grace, John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Campbell, E. T.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Marjoribanks, Edward


Carver, Major W. H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Meller, R. J.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Don. John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox, Univ.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Muirhead, A. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Christie, J. A.
Hanbury, C.
O'Connor, T. J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Neill, Sir H.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hartington, Marquess of
Peake, Captain Osbert


Penny, Sir George
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Simms, Major-General J.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)
Train, J.


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Skelton, A. N.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Power, Sir John Cecil
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Powhall, Sir Assheton
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Pybus, Percy John
Smithers, Waldron
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ramsbotham, H.
Somerset, Thomas
Wells, Sydney R.


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Remer, John R.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)
Stanley, Hon. O (Westmorland)
Withers, Sir John James


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
Womersley, W. J.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynernouth)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Thompson, Luke



Savery, S. S.
Thomson, Sir F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Captain Margesson and Sir Victor Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Edmunds, J. E.
Knight, Holford


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Egan, W. H.
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Alpass, J. H.
Elmley, Viscount
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Angell, Sir Norman
Foot, Isaac
Lawrence, Susan


Arnott, John
Freeman, Peter
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Aske, Sir Robert
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Leach, W.


Ayles, Walter
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gibbins, Joseph
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Gill, T. H.
Lees, J.


Barnes, Alfred John
Gossling, A. G.
Leonard, W.


Barr, James
Gould, F.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Batey, Joseph
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Logan, David Gilbert


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Gray, Milner
Longbottom, A. W.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Longden, F.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Benson, G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Lunn, William


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Birkett, W. Norman
Groves, Thomas E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Bondfletd, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Grundy, Thomas W.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Bowen, J. W.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McElwee, A


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hall, J. H (Whitechapel)
McEntee, V. L.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
McKinlay, A.


Bromfield, William
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
MacLaren, Andrew


Bromley, J.
Harbord, A.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Brooke, W.
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Brothers, M.
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Harris, Percy A.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Haycock, A. W.
Manning, E. L.


Buchanan, G.
Hayes, John Henry
Mansfield, W.


Burgess, F. G.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
March, S.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Marcus, M.


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Markham, S. F.


Cameron, A. G.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx. Enfield)
Marley, J.


Cape, Thomas
Herriotts, J.
Marshall, Fred


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hicks, Ernest George
Mathers, George


Charleton, H. C.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Matters, L. W.


Chater, Daniel
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Maxton, James


Church, Major A. G.
Hoffman, P. C.
Messer, Fred


Clarke, J. S.
Hopkin, Daniel
Middleton, G.


Cluse, W. S.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Mills, J. E.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Milner, Major J.


Compton, Joseph
Isaacs, George
Montague, Frederick


Cove, William G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Morley, Ralph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Daggar, George
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Dallas, George
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Mort, D. L.


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Muff, G.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Murnin, Hugh


Day, Harry
Kelly, W. T.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Naylor, T. E.


Dukes, C.
Kenworthy, Lt. Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Duncan, Charles
Kinley, J.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Ede, James Chuter
Kirkwood, D.
Oldfield, J. R.




Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Townend, A. E.


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Palin, John Henry
Sherwood, G. H.
Turner, Sir Ben


Palmer, E. T.
Shield, George William
Vaughan, David


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Viant, S. P.


Perry, S. F.
Shillaker, J. F.
Walkden, A. G.


Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Walker, J.


Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Simmons, C. J.
Wallace, H. W.


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Watkins, F. C.


Pole, Major D. G.
Sinkinson, George
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Potts, John S.
Sitch, Charles H.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Price, M. P.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Wellock, Wilfred


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Rathbone, Eleanor
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Raynes, W. R.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
West, F. R.


Richards, R.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Westwood, Joseph


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
White, H. G.


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Sorensen, R.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Stamford, Thomas W.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Ritson, J.
Stephen, Campbell
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Strauss, G. R.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Romeril, H. G.
Sullivan, J.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Sutton, J. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Rowson, Guy
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Thurtle, Ernest
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Sanders, W. S.
Tillett, Ben
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Sandham, E.
Tinker, John Joseph
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Sawyer, G. F.
Toole, Joseph



Sexton, Sir James
Tout, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Paling.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 276; Noes, 209.

Division No. 291.]
AYES.
[6.16 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Cluse, W. S.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Adamson, W. M. (Start., Cannock)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Haycock, A. W.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Compton, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Cove, William G.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Alpass, J. H.
Daggar, George
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Ammon, Charles George
Dallas, George
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Angell, Sir Normen
Dalton, Hugh
Herriotts, J.


Arnott, John
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Hicks, Ernest George


Aske, Sir Robert
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworthl


Attlee, Clement Richard
Day, Harry
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Ayles, Walter
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hoffman, P. C.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hopkin, Daniel


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Dukes, C.
Hudson, James H. (Huddertfield)


Barnes, Alfred John
Duncan, Charles
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Barr, James
Ede, James Chuter
Isaacs, George


Batey, Joseph
Edmunds, J. E.
Jenkins, Sir William


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Egan, W. H.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Elmley, Viscount
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Benson, G.
Foot, Isaac
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Freeman, Peter
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Birkett, W. Norman
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Kelly, W. T.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Bowen, J. W.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gibbins, Joseph
Kinley, J.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gill, T. H.
Kirkwood, D.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Gossling, A. G.
Knight, Holford


Bromfield, William
Gould, F.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Bromley, J.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)


Brooke, W.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Brothers, M.
Gray, Milner
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Grenfell, D. H. (Glamorgan)
Lawrence, Susan


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)


Buchanan, G.
Groves, Thomas E.
Leach, W.


Burgess, F. G.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Halt, J. H (Whitechapel)
Lees, J.


Cameron, A. G.
Halt, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Leonard, W


Cape, Thomas
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Charleton, H. C.
Harbord, A.
Logan, David Gilbert


Chater, Daniel
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Longbottom, A. W.


Church, Major A. G.
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Longden, F.


Clarke, J. S.
Harris, Percy A.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Lunn, William
Perry, S. F.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stephen, Campbell


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Strauss, G. R.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Basset law)
Picton-Tubervill, Edith
Sullivan, J.


McElwee, A.
Pole, Major D. G.
Sutton, J. E.


McEntee, V. L.
Potts, John S.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Price, M. P.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


McKinlay, A.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


MacLaren, Andrew
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Thurtle, Ernest


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Raynes, W. R.
Tillett, Ben


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Richards, R.
Tinker, John Joseph


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Toole, Joseph


Malone, C. L'Estranga (N'thampton)
Riley, Ben (Dewebury)
Tout, W. J.


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Townend, A. E.


Manning, E. L.
Ritson, J.
Trovelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Mansfield, W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Turner, Sir Ben


March, S.
Romeril, H. G.
Vaughan, David


Marcus, M.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Viant, S. P.


Markham, S. F.
Rowson, Guy
Walkden, A. G.


Marley, J.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Walker, J.


Marshall, Fred
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Wallace, H. W.


Mathers, George
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Watkins, F. C.


Matters, L. W.
Sanders. W. S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Maxton, James
Sandham, E.
Watts Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Messer, Fred
Sawyer, G. F.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Middleton, G.
Scurr, John
Wellock, Wilfred


Mills, J. E.
Sexton, Sir James
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Milner, Major J.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Montague, Frederick
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
West, F. R.


Morley, Ralph
Sherwood, G. H.
Westwood, Joseph


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Shield, George William
White, H. G.


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Mort, D. L.
Shillaker, J. F.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Muff, G.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Muggeridge, H. T.
Simmons, C. J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Murnin, Hugh
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Nathan, Major H. L.
Sinkinson, George
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Naylor, T. E.
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Oldfield, J. R.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester. Loughb'gh)


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Palin, John Henry
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip



Palmer, E. T.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Sorensen, R.
Mr. Paling and Mr. B. Smith.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Ferguson, Sir John


Albery, Irving James
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Fermoy, Lord


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l. W.)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fielden, E. B.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Fison, F. G. Clavering


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfred W.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Astor, Viscountess
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Atholl, Duchess of
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Atkinson, C.
Chapman, Sir S.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Christie, J. A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Gower, Sir Robert


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Colfox, Major William Philip
Grace, John


Balniel, Lord
Colman, N. C. D.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Colville, Major D. J.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Beaumont, M. W.
Cooper, A. Duff
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Cranborne, Viscount
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Culverwell, C. T, (Bristol, West)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Boyce, Leslie
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hanbury, C.


Bracken, B.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hartington, Marquess of


Brass, Captain Sir William
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Briscoe, Richard George
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Haslam, Henry C.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Dixey, A. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Buchan, John
Eden, Captain Anthony
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Butler, R. A.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
England, Colonel A.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Campbell, E. T.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Carver, Major W. H.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer




Hurd, Percy A.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hutchlion, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Inskip, Sir Thomas
O'Connor, T. J.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Iveagh, Countess of
O'Neill, Sir H.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Penny, Sir George
Steel-Maitland. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast south)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Perkins, W. R. D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Lamb, Sir J. O.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Lambert, Ht. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Thompson, Luke


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Thomson, Sir F.


Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ramsbotham, H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Todd. Capt. A. J.


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Remer, John R.
Train, J


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Turton, Robert Hugh


Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Long, Major Hon. Eric
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Lymington, Viscount
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wells, Sydney R.


Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Salmon, Major I.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Savery, S. S.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Marjoribanks, Edward
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Meller, R. J.
Simms, Major-General J.
Womereley, W. J.


Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Oueen's U., Belfast)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Skelton, A. N.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)



Moore. Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Muirhead, A. J.
Smithers, Waldron
Captain Margesson and Sir Victor Warrender.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Somerset, Thomas

CLAUSE 8.—(Ascertainment of values.)

The CHAIRMAN: The first three Amendments I select, to be taken together, are the first three on page 1810—In page 5, line 15, to leave out the word "or"; after the word "works," to insert the words "or roads"; and to leave out from the word "works" to the end of the paragraph, and to insert instead thereof the words "except those executed by the expenditure of public money "—and along with them the sixth Amendment on page 1811, in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne)—in page 5, line 39, at the end to insert the words:
(v) any part of the land value of the unit which—

(a) is directly attributable to works executed or expenditure of a capital nature (including any expenses of advertisement) incurred bona fide by or on behalf of or solely in the interests of any person interested in the land for the purpose of improving the value of the land as building land or for the purpose of any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture; or
(b) is directly attributable to the appropriation of any land or to the gift of any land by any person interested in the land for the purpose of streets, roads, paths, squares, gardens, or other open spaces for the use of the public; or
(c) is directly attributable to the expenditure of money on the redemption of any tithe, land tax, or any fixed charge, or on the enfranchisement of copyhold
1078
land or customary freeholds, or on effecting the release of any covenant or agreement restricting the use of land which may be taken into account in ascertaining the land value of the land, or to any other matter which is personal to the owner, occupier, or other person interested for the time being in the land.
Where any works executed or expenditure incurred for the purpose of improving the value of the land for agriculture have actually improved the value of the land as building land or for the purpose of any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture, the works or expenditure shall for the purposes of this provision be treated as having been executed or incurred also for the latter purposes.
and the fifth Amendment, in the name of the Noble Lord the Member for Alder-shot (Viscount Wolmer), on page 1815—In page 7, line 39, at the end, to insert the words:
(6) When the owner of a land unit satisfies the Commissioners that the value thereof at the valuation date is due in whole or in part to the expenditure of money by the owner upon the development, or upon the preservation of the amenities, thereof during the immediately preceding period of thirty years, the taxable value of the land unit shall be the value thereof as ascertained under the preceding Sub-sections of this section reduced by an amount equal to the value created by such expenditure.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. Do I understand that you are taking with the first Amendment three selected Amendments and that the Vote will be taken on all those Amendments;
further, whether it is not a new departure to select three Amendments and leave out all intervening Amendments from our Debates? Will it be possible in the circumstances to debate other Amendments to the Clause in this first Debate?

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I have selected the first three Amendments on page 1810 and the other two Amendments to which I have referred because they all go together. They will be discussed together, but that does not mean that I am taking no Amendments in between.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 15, to leave out the word "or."
This does not seem to be a very big Amendment, but if it is read in conjunction, not only with the next two Amendments which follow, but with the Amendments to which the Chairman has called attention, it will be seen that this Amendment raises the entire question of the taxation of improvements due to the owner and not due to the community. In the 1909–10 Finance Act, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) found it necessary, in the course of the Debates, to put into Clause 25 of that Act words which are almost identical with those which appear in my name on the Order Paper at the bottom of page 1811. There is a slight difference in the wording, and the difference is due to the fact that agricultural land is treated rather differently in that Act and in this Bill. In this case the cultivation value has to be made out and it has to be subtracted from the land value. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs dealt with agricultural value solely. He made allowances, and deducted them from the value of the land ascertained, deducted works put in for agricultural purposes. That is why the wording of my Amendment does not follow exactly the wording in the Finance Act of 1909–10, but substantially the exemptions proposed to be given are the same.

These Amendments which raise a point of wide interest, deserve the careful consideration of the Government. We were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposed this tax for the first time in Committee of Ways and Means, that its object was to take back some
portion of the value of land which is due to the community. I suppose that there is a value, due to the community, which is to some extent inherent in all things. After all, we are citizens of a wealthy and heavily populated country which, by the mere fact of its existence, enables all of us, in our various capacities, to command perhaps a higher money value for our services than we would command if we belonged to a poor and sparsely populated country. In the course of the Debate on the Financial Resolutions, one of my right hon. Friends in front of me asked the Solicitor-General how much of his value was due to the community. Undoubtedly a certain amount of the hon. and learned Gentleman's value is due to the community. Hon. Members opposite who carry on useful work on behalf of the trade unions—for which they receive, I am sure, a well-deserved remuneration—undoubtedly owe a part of their value in that respect to the mere existence of the community. If they were for example, in Latvia, where, I understand, trade unions are unknown, there would be no demand for their services and consequently no value attaching to their services in that respect.

In that way I suggest that all values are to some extent due to the mere existence of the community, and I submit that already the community takes back its fair share for the values which it has created in that way, in the form of Income Tax, Super-tax, Death Duties and other taxation with which the citizen is inflicted. There is a common value which no member of a civilised community can help having attached to him and which the community does, in point of fact, take back to some extent through the ordinary channels of taxation. It may be argued that a special value can attach to land due to the direct action of the community, over and above the general value, which is due to the mere existence of the community, and which is not peculiar to land, but attaches to all other things. The instance generally given in support of this argument is the expenditure of money from the rates or from the Road Fund in the creation of improvements, in the extension of public services, such as waterworks, which are financed to some extent, though not very largely, out of the rates. I would point out however in that connection that there is generally a condition as to the charges
for such services attached by the House of Commons to the grant of powers to a local authority for the construction of such works.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer dedended this tax on the ground that where the value is due to the action of the community, in the expenditure of the community's money, the community is entitled to some return for the creation of that value, and the object of these Amendments is to deal with a case where the value has been created, not by the expenditure of money on the part of the community, but by direct expenditure on the part of the owner. I suggest that a great many of the values with which it is proposed to deal are due to the expenditure of money by landowners in the development of their land, and that it is inequitable that a tax should be levied on that expenditure, any more than upon any other kind of expenditure which develops and improves industry or otherwise adds to the productiveness of the community.

There are many works which have to be carried out if a piece of land is to be developed for building purposes. If the Creator gave the land to the people, he certainly did not give it in a form which is convenient for building in most cases. The surface has to be levelled, and in many cases—a thing which this Bill ignores altogether—special provision has to be made to prevent flooding. In certain case, a great deal of expenditure has to be incurred to protect the land from the encroachments of the sea, and very often special rates of various kinds have to be paid by the owner of the land. I do not think that in those cases it can be argued that the site value is due entirely, or to any large extent, to any action taken by the community. It is due to the action of the owners of the land who have undertaken necessary work in order to protect and improve their property, and who are paying perhaps various drainage and sea defence rates, which are complicated and vary in incidence and amount between different parts of the country. Not only is it generally necessary to level the land, in order to develop it for building, but it is usually necessary also to construct roads to put in sewers and to carry out other works before the land can be used for building purposes.

If a tax is to be levied, on what is supposed to be the increment) value of a site due to the action of the community, I fail to see why we should not remove from that tax the improvements which are directly due to the initiative of the owner. That is not expenditure which is in any sense due to the community. It is entirely due to the enterprise and foresight of the person who has developed the land. Further, this expenditure is very often incurred by the owner with no result. An owner may have reason to think that a town will develop in a certain direction, and that certain land will be suitable for building development. He may spend money in constructing roads, putting down sewers, providing a water supply and so forth, making the land ready to be used for building. It may then turn out that, for some unforeseen reason, the development of the town does not take place in the expected direction as rapidly as was anticipated and the owner is left with what he thought was going to be an eligible building site, on his hands. He may have expended a great deal of money on it, but owing to trade depression or for some other cause he is unable to make use of the land.

I will give an instance of what I mean. I refer to an estate in South Wales, the name of which I do not propose to mention. The owner of that estate during the past 13 years expended over £62,000 in the construction of roads and sewers and in developing the land for building purposes. Of this expenditure, £19,500 is still lying idle owing to the land not having been built upon fully, and it is upon the result of that unprofitable expenditure that, it appears, the present tax is to be levied. I may also mention that the owner of this estate, with the sole object of contributing to the relief of unemployment, expended £7,000 in laying out land for building in advance of requirements. Is he to be taxed upon that £7,000 which undoubtedly has improved the site value? The improvement is not in any way due to the community, but is entirely due to his enterprise and public spirit. Is he to have no allowance for that £62,000 which he has spent in developing the land which otherwise would not be suitable for building and, which, if taken over in its naked state by a local authority,
would have required the expenditure of £62,000 by that local authority before it could have been used for building? That owner has done something to save money for the community. Is he to be taxed because he has managed his estate prudently and profitably while a man who has neglected his estate is to escape the tax altogether or pay a much smaller amount merely because of his neglect?

We have often heard from this Government about the necessity for the rationalisation of industry and the need for people looking ahead in the management of their affairs. They have now an opportunity of applying that principle to the development of land. But do we find the Government giving encouragement to the person who expends money on the prudent and reasonable development of his land? On the contrary, as I understand this tax—and I think as everybody who has studied it understands it—the more a man has spent in developing his property, the higher will be its value and therefore the greater the amount of the tax which will have to be paid upon it. Is that carrying out the principle of encouraging people to make the best use of what belongs to them? Instead of carrying out that principle upon which the Government have prided themselves, they have apparently in these proposals taken the opposite view, because, inevitably, the effect of this tax, as I have shown, if applied in this way, will be to penalise the progressive person.

Unless these Amendments are accepted, it seems to me that a tax will be placed upon capital which has been expended wisely and for the benefit of the community, while the man who has not expended money but has left his land vacant and undeveloped will get off with less taxation, because his land, if put upon the market, would command a lower value than that of the developed land. No one will give the same price for completely undeveloped land as for land which has roads and sewers and water supply and all the rest. The Government plan is really departing from the idea of putting a tax upon site value and is putting a tax upon the improvements which people have made in their own
property and I cannot see on what ground the proposal can be defended. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs when he brought in his 1909 Budget, accepted the principle that what was due to the enterprise and expenditure of the owner should be exempt and I believe that the principle is accepted more or less by the disciples of Henry George. I would not like to say how strongly it is held by them but I know from discussions which I have had with the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) that he at any rate gives it sympathetic consideration. The Government have chosen now for the first time to depart from it altogether. Of course if we accept the view put forward by the hon. Member for Burslem the real object of the tax is vindictive. It is a tax to punish all landowners for being landowners. According to his view and, apparently, the view of the Government, the holding of land is iniquitous. If that be their view then I can quite understand the Government penalising the man who makes the best use of his land on the good old principle:
I'll larn ye to be a toad.

But if there is any idea of justice in the application of the tax surely the principle of these Amendments should be conceded. The tax in its incidence is directed to a small class of people but if a tax of this class is to be imposed deliberately to penalise the man who looks after his property, and to charge him more than the man who neglects his property, then I fail to see one single redeeming feature in the Government's proposal.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: We are in some difficulty in dealing with this Amendment because the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) was solely devoted to an Amendment which appears later on the Order Paper. When we come to vote we shall vote I presume on the first Amendment which he has moved but we are evidently discussing the subsequent Amendment. I think that is regrettable, because I think that the discussion of that Amendment should come after the discussion on the exclusion of minerals and sporting rights.
I think that the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford, who has so ably advocated the true gospel of Henry George
so far as improvements are concerned, might have supported us perhaps by allowing the inclusion in the valuation of minerals and sporting rights. However, as the Debate is taking place now, I think those of us who feel as I do can merely register our regret that minerals and sporting rights are excluded by a Labour Government from the valuation, and devote ourselves entirely to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is more "single tax" even than the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) or myself. I always suspect the Greeks when they bring gifts, even though they come from Oxford University.
We know that the purists would, in an ideal world, in a world populated by ideal valuers, take every word that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said for gospel, for the right and just thing to do, and exclude these things. I am entirely with him. Anything done by man should be, theoretically, excluded from the basis of your valuation and taxation, but we live in a world of human beings, and I ask the Members of the Committee just to run through with me the list of those items which the unhappy valuer is to exclude from the valuation of the land. We are paying for it to the tune of £400,000, I believe, this year, and it would be millions if these items were taken into account. He is to reckon out the value as if
the sale price had been computed without taking into account. … any part of the land value of the unit which … is directly attributable to works executed or expenditure of a capital nature incurred … or is directly attributable to the appropriation of any land or to the gift of any land by any person interested in the land for the purpose of streets, roads, paths, squares, gardens, or other open spaces for the use of the public.
That will take some calculating. All the past is to be raked over for presentations by landlords to the public of the lands they have originally appropriated. It gets better and better as the Clause goes on. I have forgotten to mention already the expenses of advertisement, and then the things that we have to insist upon the valuer excluding from the value of the land are to include:
the expenditure of money on the redemption of any tithe, land tax, or any fixed charge.
Many people have redeemed tithe in recent years, and many people have redeemed tithe, acting through their ancestors, many hundreds of years ago. Land tax also, whenever redeemed, has to be taken into account, and it goes on:
or on the enfranchisement of copyhold land or customary freeholds.
It is an inquiry into the value of any plot of land taken, not two, but 20 years before these things happened. [Interruption.] We must be practical. We live in this world, and although we might be willing to welcome the assistance we get from hon. Members opposite in basing our tax upon a true land value, yet we suspect them when we find that they are so anxious to exclude these things and yet not anxious, curiously enough, to exclude buildings, factories, and other improvements. Why oppose the principle which excludes buildings and other improvements, and yet be such sticklers for financial and moral rectitude as to ask us to exclude those things which cannot be valued properly by any human value?
The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), when he made his speech on the Budget Resolution, warned the Chancellor of the Exchequer precisely against this sort of Amendment. When the valuation of 1909 was passing through this House, exactly similar Amendments were moved in a similar spirit by hon. Members opposite. Their arguments on the pure grounds of Henry Georgeism were as cogent then as they are to-day in the hands of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of those days was so moved by their eloquence that again and again he accepted their Amendments. The result was a valuation which it was impossible to make, which had to run the gauntlet of the law courts in countless cases, which was often unenforceable; and it was precisely because of that that now Somerset House and the Government draftsmen, having learned their lesson, have made them bring forward a valuation which was practical. The valuation, however much I may deplore the exclusion of agricultural land, minerals, and sporting rights, is a practical valuation to-day, so far as these particular items are concerned, and I beg the Government not to give way on this Amendment.
I do not think, as a matter of fact, the Government require any advice on this question. It has been drilled into them too often that concessions of this sort will ruin the power of the valuer to make the valuation. But I think it is necessary to direct caution in this respect towards my hon. Friends on the Liberal benches. It is so specious to exclude these things. We all want—I myself just as much as they—to cut out from the valuation everything that has been done by man, but, believe me, it is not practicable. The right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) was in the House in those days. He remembers all the arguments which were brought forward then for excluding every one of these improvements—land drainage and unexhausted improvements of every sort. They were accepted in those days because then we were young and perhaps more gullible than we are to-day, but our acceptance of those Amendments in those days made the valuation impossible to carry out, and it added enormously to the cost.
Indeed, they have only to read on the Amendment Paper, at the bottom of page 1811, the 20 lines or so of the things which the valuer is to exempt from the value of land and is to take into account in modifying the sale price of the land to see how hopeless at would be to arrive at anything in the nature of a valuation at all. There is drainage, the gift of land in past times, the redemption of tithe hundreds of years ago, the redemption of Land Tax, any restriction upon the use of land adjoining, and other things. Why, if the valuer had to take them all into account, it would be absolutely impossible to get the valuation done in two years.
I come to this final point. We here are not experts. This is essentially a matter which must be dealt with by experts. The valuation of land to-day is not a thing at which the mere man in the street or in the House of Commons will be much good. This Bill, as drafted, has for more than two years run the gauntlet of a most intense examination by the people who have to do the work. They know perfectly well what the Government are after, what hon. Members opposite are after, and, I may add, what the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford and those who
are supporting the Amendment are after. They know what can be done, having approached as near as human nature will allow to a decent, honest valuation of land values as apart from improvements upon the land created by man.
If this valuation goes through, as soon as it is made clear that it is not to be an additional tax, not to be a double tax upon property, but a substitutional tax, we shall, as far as is humanly possible, relieve buildings and improvements from taxation. We cannot go any further. I should like to go with the hon. and gallant Member the whole of the Way, but I know that it is impossible. Let us therefore take what we can get. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am sorry that I inadvertently used that anti-ducal thrust. Let us seek the best valuation possible and use it to do what can be done, hoping that at a future time we may possibly modify the valuation so as to exclude from any form of taxation, whether penal or otherwise, all those other improvements made by man which it is our desire to encourage in future and to see more of.
I felt entirely with the hon. and gallant Member when he was pleading to encourage people to go in for more land reclamation, for more laying out of property, and all the rest of it. He is quite right. The object of this tax, substituted for other taxation on property, is to encourage people to develop their holdings by relieving them of the burdens falling upon them at the present time. He knows, none better, what the effect of the present rates is. He knows, for instance, that at the present time, if a progressive shopkeeper puts in a plate-glass front or adds a workshop at the rear of his premises, improving the state of the town, giving employment in the place, the only result is that the rate collector calls on him and says to him: "You villain. You have been improving your property; you have been allowing people to work." He puts his assessment up, and punishes him for improving his property.
The hon. and gallant Member and I know quite well that that is a deterrent to the development of property, that it-checks production and checks employment. He and I know quite well that by excluding all those improvements made by man, whether shop fronts, or additional storeys, or something in the back yard, we shall be doing something to improve
trade. Well, let us get on with it. Let us do what this Bill allows us to do. Let us exclude buildings, at any rate, and perhaps in future we may be able to exclude other forms of improvements on or under the land as well. But let us do this first, conscious that in doing that we are at any rate doing something to benefit trade, to increase employment, to increase the development of property, and to allow men to get on with their own business by making good instead of being punished for doing so by the penal taxation which exists to-day.

Sir HILTON YOUNG: It is extraordinary the power that there is in a phrase or a word. Just because the Government have dubbed this 7.0 p.m. tax a land tax, they have persuaded the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken to abandon, by the magic of the word "land," his life-long convictions, because it appears to escape his attention that what he has been addressing to the Committee is a quite convincing argument against the practicability of the scheme of taxation of land values, to which he has devoted so much of the enthusiasm of a life-time. His argument leads to this refreshing proposition, that you are going to encourage an industry, which is one of the most vital to the country at the present time, by confiscating one-twelfth of the property of those engaged in the industry. This scheme has no relation whatever to the reasonable scheme for the taxation of land values. The right hon. Gentleman is in the position of a man standing half-way up a hill, and wants to go to the top of it. It is pointed out to him that it is very difficult to make the ascent to the summit, and so he says, "We must be practical. Instead of going to the top of the hill, let us go to the bottom." He then goes in precisely the opposite direction from that in which he wishes to go. In the same way, the right hon. Gentleman asks the Government for bread and they give him a stone, and he says, "Let us be practical; if we cannot get bread, let us take a stone." He has asked for a scheme for the taxation of site values, and yet he accepts a scheme which has no relation to it.
The particular feature of the tax, which we desire to remove by this Amendment, has no more relation to the true taxation of site values than has such a generalised
tax as the Schedule A Income Tax. The Schedule A Income Tax has one particular advantage, that it spreads the burden of taxation over the whole of property in the land, whereas this tax which we are now considering has, in the feature which we desire to remove, this particularly bad effect, that it concentrates the burden of taxation upon a part of the investment of the land which is that part which is most useful from the point of view of the community, that is, the private capital which is put into the development of the land. Is not that perfectly clear? There are three parts in the value of any property in land. There is the value of the land, the value of the private capital used for the development of the land, and the value of the building. Of those three parts, which is the part that it is most in the interest of the community to protect? It is surely that part which consists in the private capital put in for the development of the land. The social interests of the community are wrapped up in that part of the investment; they require that the State should do all it can to encourage people to use as much capital as they can, not simply for piling up buildings on cheap sites, but for developing land for the proper growth of the town and the community. That is precisely that part of the value which this tax most accentuates.
It is a most extraordinary thing that, at this time of day, when we are arguing about these matters, it should really be necessary in this great tribunal to have to defend the most elementary propositions of common sense as regards taxation. Nevertheless, it is necessary. The most elementary of all those propositions in connection with the taxation of land is that if you confine your taxation to the mere value of the site—it is the old argument for site values so cavalierly abandoned by the right hon. Gentleman to-day—a man cannot remove his site and, at any rate, it stays in the market. He cannot go off with it. But, if we increase the valuation on the second part of the value, the part in which the community is so interested, the use of private capital for the site, on which amenities so much depend, then you tax something you can discourage, and you diminish the amount of capital employed in that way, and drive it off the land. Is it really necessary to call the attention
of the Government, who are supposed to have some political education and some political common sense, to this point? Yet here are the Government putting in their protests and their policy a desire to encourage the reasonable development of town sites with proper regard for the amenities of the community, while their action under these provisions is directed to the converse object.
Let me take a single instance, the clearest instance of all, to illustrate the mischief of this particular feature of the tax. Take a developing area just outside a town, through which there has been driven a new arterial road. Those who are engaged in the development of that area have a choice before them of spending the money upon making side roads so as to produce a reasoned and ordered development of the sort which is known to be an amenity for the community, or, alternatively, ribbon development, the erection of the houses in a string along the road. That is what we know to be the great eyesore and the great inconvenience of the growth of our modern cities.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Much better than slums!

Sir HILTON YOUNG: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is content, as we know, with a very low measure of perfection, and I have already pointed out that he is content with a scheme which is not the scheme of his own life-long work, but a scheme directly contrary to it. That example makes me less surprised when I find him content with something much less good in town planning. I have a higher aspiration, and will not be content with anything less than the very best, and that is development by cross-roads and not ribbon development. If this Clause goes through without the addition of the Amendment, you prohibit any sort of development except ribbon development. What a preposterous state of affairs—pressing through the Town and Country Planning Bill upstairs, a Bill which affects to be the successor of the modest Measure in which I feel historically interested, which with the unanimous applause of the House and of the Minister of Health was an endeavour to prevent ribbon development,
a policy which I understood to be adopted by the Government. £ wonder if the Government do or do not understand what they are about in this particular business, if they are really capable of putting two and two together, or if their minds are now in that shattered and shaken condition in which they are quite incapable of seeing the relevance of the land tax proposals to the Town Planning Bill. I prefer to think they are so much stunned by recent events that they are incapable of any intelligent co-ordination.
Suppose, in the condition to which I have referred, the developer looking at his financial prospects and seeing that reasonable, ordered development is penalised to the extent of one-twelfth of the money spent upon it, what does he do? He takes advantage of the cheap development, and puts his houses along the main road. Under those conditions one is filled with a sense of grave alarm as to the prospects of the whole struggle for amenity. It is impossible to maintain the struggle on one front while the rear is being turned by these proposals. Even at this eleventh hour, "Hope springs eternal." Is it necessary to despair of the support of this Amendment by those who in past years have been the champions in science and in theory of land value taxation? I confess myself still a believer in it on a more reasonable basis than the present basis, but I see no prospect of maintaining that theory unless we can induce the House of Commons, under such conditions as these, to understand the difference between a site value tax and a general tax upon the land. Nothing fills me with more depression than the abandonment of principle by the right hon. Gentleman. Can we expect no hope from the Government on this question? We know very well, under the conditions which we are arguing this subject, that it is unnecessary for them to reply. It is unnecessary for the supporters of the Government to be present in the Committee. It makes no difference to the outcome of this discussion if no reply is vouchsafed us, but this is the kernel and key of the land tax. This is the most flagrant flouting of the interests of the community and, unless we can obtain some assurance upon it, all the hopes that are cherished by the party
below the Gangway for the reform of land taxation fall to the ground.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The Government have, naturally, always realised that this particular problem is one of the most difficult in the problem of land taxation. I must ask the Committee to bear with me for a short time while I try to explain the attitude we have taken up in the Bill, and the difficulties we see in the substantial Amendment that has been proposed. I am dealing with the larger Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), which is the passage lifted from the 1909–10 Act. May I, first of all, try to explain shortly the position as it is? There are really three matters with which it is necessary to deal under Clause 8 Sub-section (1, a). Those are the roads, the agricultural works, and what I may call the drainage works. Those are the three classes of works which, to some extent, are retained in the unit. Now most of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman have really been addressed to the problem of roads and to the problem that arises in the development of land in the vicinity of towns by private developers who do it by driving through roads and putting in services in order to open up what is commonly called the back land, and therefore to give to the back land a value comparable to the frontage land, which already has that value by the existence of the public road there. The term "road" is defined in Clause 27 of the Bill. In that definition an attempt has been made to cut out from the incidence of the tax development roads which are put in by builders. The definition excludes private roads; that is, roads which the occupier alone is entitled to use. In an area outside a town the builder will put in his roads, and during the period that he is working there these roads will not form any part of the land value. They will be completely exempted as being private roads, and therefore will not come within the definition of roads.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: Does that mean that private roads remain entirely outside the Bill unless and until they are taken over by the public authority?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Not quite. I will explain the position. It depends on the right of user. If a
developer is developing in the ordinary way from the main road, as he develops down the side road and as he lets off or sells the land units along the road, it opens up the right of user and the road will become a road within the meaning of the definition. Therefore, it is not until the builder either lets or sells in the course of his development that any part of the road will come into the land value.

Captain BOURNE: I want to get the hon. and learned Gentleman's point quite clear. The roads will, in point of fact, come in as they are developed, irrespective of whether they are maintainable by the inhabitants at large or not?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and gallant Member is perfectly correct. The road, as soon as it can be used or as soon as more than one person is entitled to use it, will come in as part of the value. Sewers and drains in the road will be in a different position altogether. Immediately these are connected up to the houses and carry sewage they become the property of the local authority, and therefore they cease to be part of the land unit at all and will never come into the value as works. I am assuming that we are dealing with one of the units of occupation, for until some portion of the land is occupied by someone who is going into a house, there will be no unit of occupation except the large one which the builder has. He will continue to be the occupier of that part which he has not sold or let off as houses.

Earl WINTERTON: I would like to ask one question which vitally affects my constituency and the part of England where I live. There are a number of green lanes which are rights of way. How are they affected by this Clause? Are they roads within the meaning of the Clause?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Certainly, because they are not limited to a single user by a single person.

Earl WINTERTON: Although they may be impassable to vehicles, yet they are roads?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Certainly. I am trying to explain what is in the Bill; I have not come to any question of justifying it or not justifying it.
We have now got to the land unit which is in the occupation of some householder who has purchased it. There will be included in that land unit a portion of the road, probably to the middle of the road, which belongs to that land unit and no more, and there will not be included in that the drains nor the electric light cables, and so on, which will be the property of either the local authority or the company concerned. There will, of course, be included all the other surrounding units in the state in which they are at the moment. That is to say, a bit of road which is in a unit will be connected with the whole main road system of the country, and as that particular site is accessible from London by, say, the Great West Road, some portion of the value will no doubt be attributable to the Great West Road. The mere fact that people can motor there from London has an effect, of course, on the value, and it is impossible, so far as we can see, to dissociate the particular little piece of road which is in front of a particular house on a unit from the whole road system of the, country, because it only derives any value which it has by reason of its being part of the road system of the country.
When the purchaser of the house gets hold of the land unit, it will be quite immaterial to him who built the road. It does not matter to him whether it is on a road made by a public authority or a road developed five, 25 or 50 years ago by private enterprise. When you get to the case of the actual man who has developed, there may conceivably be a period of time when he will be chargeable for a portion of the road, and for the period of time of his possession only he will be chargeable with some of the improvement value. That is as far as I can make clear the position so far as roads are concerned. I will come to the question of works executed for agricultural purposes. First of all, these will have no effect on agricultural land at all because they will be both in the cultivation value and in the land value, and therefore, when you subtract one from the other, the value of them disappears entirely. It is only therefore as regards non-agricultural land that works executed for agricultural purposes will have any effect whatever.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: The Solicitor-General says that the value of these works will be in both the land value and the cultivation value, so that, as one is subtracted from the other, they will make no difference. Does he mean that the same figure for cultivation value will persist through the different valuation periods, or does he mean that it will only be the same thing so far as one small period of five years is concerned, but that afterwards that value will be wiped out?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am only dealing with it while it is agricultural land. I have not got to the stage when it ceases to be agricultural land. So long as it is agricultural land, the element of agricultural works is wiped out. When you get to the stage when it is being developed—whether in the first quinquennial or subsequent quinquennials does not matter—the reason for leaving in the agricultural works is that it is impossible in the valuation to go through the country and ascertain what agricultural work has been done in the land from time immemorial. For instance, no doubt at one time there were agricultural works under this very building in which we stand, and it would be obviously ridiculous to attempt in the valuation to go back and ascertain whether at some time throughout the length and breadth of London there had been agricultural drainage works or some type of agricultural work which would generally consist of ditching or draining. Therefore the position as regards agricultural works is that they will only affect land when it is developed or built on, and the value of it at that time from the point of view of development is probably in all cases extremely small, and certainly impossible to ascertain from a valuation point of view.
I now come to the third heading, which is buildings, and works necessary for the reclamation of land or protection from flooding or for maintaining the stability of the land. Again, of course, that will not be material as regards agricultural land, but, as regards non-agricultural land, the reason for putting this in is again in order to make the valuation a practical thing. The valuer has to put the value on something that he can see and visualise. If you were to take the case, for instance, where there is a seawall,
it would be absolutely impossible from a valuation point of view to guess what might have happened to that land if there had never been a sea-wall. It would be an insoluble problem.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: It would be easy to imagine.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It would not be so easy to imagine, because there would not necessarily have been an encroachment without the sea-wall. There might have been a bank thrown up and protection afforded naturally to the land. It is impossible to tell what would have been the actual effect.

Sir BASIL PETO: Will the Solicitor-General tell us what would be the object of building a sea-wall, or any other structure of that kind to keep out the sea, if there were no sea to keep out?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: There is a principle by which people sometimes do things as a matter of precaution. You cannot necessarily tell what would result if the precaution were not taken. The second thing is with regard to maintaining the stability of the land. That refers to cases, which are fairly common in certain towns, where there are streets with land at different levels, and embankments have been put up, and walls sometimes, in order to support the land on one side of the street. It would be impossible as a matter of valuation to value the site as if the wall were not there, because the site would not be there if the wall were not there. It would merely be a fallen-down bank. The further fact is probably true as regards a great number of these works, that they have been executed many years ago, and it is wholly immaterial to the person who is at the present time the owner as to how that came about. These are the three points with regard to the three different classes of exemption which there are in the Bill from the pure site value of the land.
May I deal with the Amendment which it is proposed to incorporate in order to get over a difficulty which is admittedly there. The Amendment really proposes four things. As a purely verbal matter, it is impossible to read the Amendment, but that is obviously only a slip, because the value is set out in the Amendment as being the amount which the land
would be expected to realise from a sale, and therefore the land value is made equivalent to the sale price. To exclude from the sale price a part of the land value would obviously be an impossible position. But that is only a small point, and it is obvious what is the intention of the Amendment. It aims to exclude a very large number of different matters, some of which are already excluded under the Bill and some of which are not. It was this, no doubt, that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) had in mind when he warned the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading that he ought not to be so foolish as he himself had been, and not to allow those exemptions which make the valuation an impossibility—that although it might be desirable in order to maintain the strict purity of the theory of land value, obviously, if the tax is to be imposed, it is absolutely essential to have a practical and a practicable scheme of valuation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentlemen opposite all agree with that proposition, because it will no doubt make the rest of the argument so much the more simple.
In the first paragraph it is proposed to eliminate the value which is directly attributable
to works executed or expenditure of a capital nature.
Practically all of these are already eliminated under the Bill. The Amendment also includes the expenses of advertisements incurred by or on behalf of the owner. I do not know how right hon. Gentlemen opposite think they can get a practical scheme of valuation if we are to exclude the benefit to a site derived from advertisements. Let me take one case, a Very common case nowadays. The owners of property in a seaside town contribute towards the expenditure of the town council upon an advertising campaign on the railways. How is a valuer to ascertain the amount of the site value in a back street of that seaside town which is attributable to that advertisement appearing, say, on all the stations of the Great Western Railway? If that is what right hon. Gentlemen opposite call a practical method of valuing land, I am afraid my ideas of what are practical in valuation must differ fundamentally from theirs. [HON.
MEMBERS: "Directly!"] The introduction of the word "directly" makes it worse, because that would raise infinite arguments as to whether it was directly or indirectly attributable, and I am sure there are many hon. and learned Gentlemen on the benches opposite who could spend many hours—many profitable-hours—in arguing that extraordinarily difficult point. Paragraph (6) of the Amendment seeks to exclude the value:
directly attributable to the appropriation of any land or to the gift of any land by any person interested in the land for the purpose of streets, roads, paths, squares, gardens or other open spaces for the use of the public.
In my submission that proposal is based upon a complete fallacy. Supposing an owner has 10 acres of land which is ready or will be ready for development, and he determines that the best way in which he can add value to eight of the acres is by saying that two of them shall be worth nothing. He redistributes the value of the land as regards two acres, making them worth nothing by making them an open space. But he adds their value to the other eight acres. That is why he does it. To say that in those circumstances the price of the two acres is to be deducted from the price of the eight acres is, in my submission, a complete fallacy. He has already got the value of the two acres into the eight acres. One of the very ordinary provisions which there are nowadays in town planning schemes limits the number of houses to 10 or 12 to the acre. In arriving at that figure you take into account all the area of the roads and open spaces. You cannot put more than 10 or 12 houses on an acre, and if you cut out some portion as roads that does not make you less able to build 12 houses to the acre. You are still able to utilise the land to its fullest extent by cutting out the land for roads.

Mr. E. BROWN: May I put this point? Take Mornington Crescent. For many years one half of it was a delightful open space, which was of great value to half the Crescent. The owners of that space let it to Carrera's tobacco factory. Is the owner worse off now because he has let that off and we are deprived of a valuable open space and have instead that huge tobacco factory, a monstrosity, set down there?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think that is an extraordinarily good instance of why we should not allow the owner of that land to get off land tax, which is the suggestion in the present Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: How does the Solicitor-General reconcile what he is saying now with the proviso on page 7, which reads:
provided that the value of the land unit shall not be deemed to be increased by reason of any other land unit being subject to any encumbrance.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: With great respect, that proviso does not deal with this point at all. I am anxious to give the right hon. and gallant Member an explanation if he wants it, but I do not want to delay the Committee now, because it would mean going into a little detail to explain exactly what that is intended to cover; but it does not cover the point we are on now.
I will turn now to the third paragraph, which is a rather general one dealing with a large number of matters. First of all there is the exclusion of sums paid as fixed charges, the expenditure of money on redemption of fixed charges, tithe or land tax,
or on the enfranchisement of copyhold land or customary freeholds, or on effecting the release of any covenant or agreement restricting the use of land.
None of those matters is part of the land value; they are certain charges or interests which are not connected with the land value; and the extraordinary position would arise that you would go back into the history of a piece of land, find that in successive generations there had been successive charges placed on it and redeemed, and by adding up the redemption moneys you would bring about a negative value to the land. By taking into account successive charges, say successive mortgages and the cost of redeeming the mortgages, you would arrive at a figure which was much greater than the value of the land. That operation, although it might be extremely comforting to the owner, would not have any relation to the task of arriving at a figure for land value. Further, in that paragraph there is the phrase:
or to any other matter which is personal to the owner, occupier or other persons interested.
I am afraid I do not appreciate what the hon. Member who moved the Amendment thinks comes into a valuation of land under the terms of the Bill which is personal to the occupier. I fear he would have some difficulty in giving me an instance of what is meant by that phrase. It is one of those ingenious phrases which was forced into the Act of 1909–10 in order to make valuation impossible. It is just that class of ingenious phrase which we have been warned very thoroughly to avoid, and we are going to accept the warning.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: When it was "forced" into the Act the Government of that day had a majority of 200.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman when he speaks will explain what exactly is meant by a matter which is personal to the occupier, because I have tried to think what it might be and I have failed to appreciate it. I have gone at some length into criticisms of the proposed Amendment, but I do not want in any way to minimise what I have already said about there being a very real difficulty here, and that we do appreciate it, and that although we have tried to cover what we consider the relevant and fair cases it may be that some form of Amendment can be devised which would still make the valuation a practical and a practicable thing and would yet, perhaps, cover some cases of hardship which might still be left in the Bill; and if any hon. Members in any part of the House can suggest to us words which are genuinely intended to remedy any defect that there may be, and do not wreck the valuation, then we shall be perfectly prepared to consider them, and we shall be prepared, if we can do it, to put in something on Report stage which will cover any really hard cases which might occur under the present form of the Bill.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Solicitor-General has spoken to us with all that persuasiveness and argumentative skill which we are coming to expect from him when he rises in Debate. I wonder, however, what he would have thought if the case which he had to defend this afternoon had been a case which he had to
argue in court, and what opinion in private he would have given to the solicitors advising him as to the justice and the strength of the view he had to support. All who listened to him will have admired his skill, but at the same time they cannot fail to come to the conclusion that the case he put forward for the Bill as it stands is completely unconvincing—whatever the Government may do afterwards, by way of some Amendment, in order to meet the difficulties which have been raised. As the Bill stands it really comes to this, that to make the tax fair presents great difficulties. Unless, therefore, they are prepared to try themselves to help with Amendments to meet admitted hardships, it seems that they are going to leave it unfair—and deliberately so, having admitted that there are hard cases which ought to be remedied—[Interruption.] There may be! "May be" from so cautious and redoubtable an advocate is at any rate a very considerable step in advance, and perhaps we may be able to take it a little further. Passing legislation in that form is an example of a case where one is prepared to
take the Cash, and let the Credit go.
Members on this side of the House view this Amendment as a measure of ordinary common sense and ordinary justice designed to make some allowance for improvements made in the property by an owner who wishes to develop it so that it may be put to public use. From the point of view of hon. Members below the Gangway we thought the Amendment would be acceptable to them as an expression of their own principles. I see one right hon. Gentleman present who voted for precisely these proposals when they were brought in some 20 years ago, and the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) did the same. He has receded since then, apparently, from the position he then took up. At any rate, he voted for the proposals then, and says that in principle he is still in favour of them.
We have never obtained from the Government a statement of the real purpose which they have in mind with regard to this Bill. What is it that they intend? Do they wish to make it a crime to own land which has to be developed? Apparently, it is now going to be a further crime to improve land,
and owners are to be penalised for doing that. Do the Government want to facilitate land being put to its best uses from the point of view of the community? If it is the purpose of hon. Members to make these things crimes, then they will vote against this Amendment or any Amendment which makes allowance for improvements. If, on the other hand, they wish to facilitate land being put to its best use, then they will vote for this Amendment.
I will now take some of the cases to which the Solicitor-General has alluded. The Amendment makes reference to different kinds of improvements. One relates to roads, another is the question of the gift of land, and a third relates to the question of the clearing off of encumbrances. Another Clause deals with the execution of works. I am not going to trouble the Committee with a long academic argument, but I would like to give a few practical cases which have actually occurred within my own experience. An ounce of fact is worth a pound of theory. I will take cases which have actually occurred, and which are typical of what is happening all over the country, and they will illustrate the problem with which we have to deal. I shall refer to some of the points which the Solicitor-General has put, and, as the Solicitor-General has left the House, no doubt the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be prepared to deal with my points. First of all, I will deal with the question of the roads. Apart from any political prejudice, is it not ordinary common justice and common sense that, if the owner of land spends money upon making roads to develop his land for building purposes, he ought not to be penalised by having to pay a tax on money spent in this way in addition to any tax there may be on the value of the land before carrying out those improvements? I should think that is a proposition which would be agreed to by everybody. If this injustice is done, I ask the Committee to note some of the results to which that injustice may lead.
I will take a typical case. I suppose that every Member of the Committee is familiar with instances where you get a row of houses built, and where in front of them there is a road which is really not worth calling a road at all, and which, in wet weather, becomes a morass, or a
series of great puddles. I know that only a small percentage of roads are in that state. I do not mean a main road with a few holes in it, but a road which has never been properly made up at all, and which has become a disgrace. I know of one case with which the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General are quite familiar. In another, there is an old farm road in front of some houses—they are miners' houses—and that road, in wet weather, is almost a morass in which the children and the people get very wet, and it is a disgrace to the whole neighbourhood. Does any hon. Member approve of the continuance of that state of affairs? I am sure no one would approve of it, but that is the kind of thing to which hon. Members opposite are driving us if they do not make some allowance for improvements made by the owners of the land. Suppose that an owner is going to make a good road to develop a bit of land. The more he spends on making the road good, the more he increases the value of the land; the more he increases the tax and adds to his own burdens. Therefore, this Clause, as it now stands, acts as an inducement to the continuance of shoddy and bad roads such as those I have mentioned. There is a further premium which you are placing on bad roads. An allowance is made for the cost of upkeep as distinct from construction. The greater the upkeep, the more you reduce the land value, with the result that the original owner has to pay less in taxes. In other words, the better the road the more an owner is penalised; the worse the road the easier he gets off. That is the direct result under a system which is unjust, because there is no allowance made for improvements.
Let me take another instance. I am not sure whether hon. Members who have not a practical acquaintance with this problem realise what a large proportion of building development is represented by the cost of the roads alone. I will give a definite case which is typical of many other cases throughout the country. It is a district where the land is not very dear or very cheap, but a normal, ordinary kind of suburban development. Half the whole value of the development is represented by the cost of roads alone, and, for every £1 spent in development, 10s. represents the cost of making the
roads. All the other costs only come to about 6s. 6d. as distinct from the cost of roads, and the actual profit comes to 3s. on every £l of the development. In this instance, what will be the result of the tax? It is obvious that it will reduce the making of roads to a minimim. Any landowner who desires to develop the land has no other course left open to him but to reduce the cost of the road to a minimum. The result is that you leave the development to a ribbon development which nobody wants, and which we are trying to cure by the Town and Country Planning Bill; or, if you are not under a housing and town planning scheme, you cramp your houses as close as you can with the minimum of roads to the acre. That will be the result unless there is some sort of allowance made for improvements in the way of roads.
I will now pass to another phase of improvements to which the Solicitor-General has referred, and that is works of reclamation to prevent flooding, or to give some advantage by way of stability to the unit. I will give a case which has taken place quite recently. It is a practical instance of a neighbour of my own in Scotland. He and his father have gradually reclaimed 100 acres of mud flat from the foreshore of the Forth, and he will be penalised for doing so under this Bill. Before these two friends of mine started on that work of reclamation, that 100 acres of mud land was under water at high tide, and it was a dirty mud bank at low tide. I do not know what hon. Members think was the value of that land originally to the community. It is clear that God never gave it to the people. At high tide it was probably given to the fishes, and at low tide it was probably given to the gulls and the wild geese who went to peck upon it. That piece of land has been slowly reclaimed, and it has now buildings upon it and factories as well. Is it now proposed to tax the owners out of existence in regard to this piece of land which these two friends of mine have developed and to which nobody else has contributed at all? I ask hon. Members to note that it is not only one penny in the pound on the capital value, or an equivalent to an Income Tax of Is. 8d. in the £1. It must not be overlooked that hon. Members opposite contemplate taking a greater slice, so that in the end these
two friends of mine will have spent all the money in taxation which they might easily have put into Government securities. Because they have been enterprising in reclaiming this land, they are now going to be penalised, and you are going to put this tax upon them in order to prevent others committing a crime as great as they have committed. That is a typical case.

Mr. MacLAREN: How long ago was it that they put up the sea wall?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think it would be better if I read a passage from a letter which I have received from the friend of mine whose case I have quoted. He says:
My father began to reclaim it 60 years ago, and I have continued to do it for 42 years. I have continued and greatly extended the reclamation work with great advantage to the whole community, so that nearly 100 acres of what half-a-century ago was useless tidal water with no industrial or agricultural value has now been converted into good land. The work of reclamation is still being extended by which absolutely new land is being added to the country for use. Most of this land is let for works now at a rent considerably in excess of the prairie value of the original muddy foreshore, but at a figure which represents only a very moderate rate of interest on the whole capital cost of maintenance.
That is the description, and, as far as I know, an absolutely accurate description, of what has been going on. Again I would ask, do hon. Members opposite think it is really fair that that man should be taxed on the 8.0 p.m. improvement he has made; or are they going to take this as a case in which some allowance ought to be made? It is a striking case, but it is not by any means unique. That man created, out of a muddy flat like a foreshore, a value which did not previously exist, but others, like those who have created garden cities, have created building value in addition to agricultural value just as truly and surely. Welwyn Garden City and some of the other garden cities would never have come into existence in anything like their present form or at anything like the present time but for the great enterprise and courage of the people who invested their money at great risk in taking agricultural land, laying it out with roads, and planning a town on new lines. If some allowance is not to be made to them,
does any hon. Member opposite, even the hon. Member for Burslem, think there would be any developments of this kind in the future, and is it desired to stifle them?

Mr. MacLAREN: As the night hon. Gentleman has asked me a direct question, may I say that, considering that the present rating system penalises any man who makes an improvement, I am amazed that we have any garden cities in this country.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I see; that is the logic of the hon. Member. He thinks that rating penalises improvements of this kind, although by some miracle some of them have been made, and therefore he proposes to put on a further tax to make quite sure that nothing of the kind will be done in the future. I must say that, of all arguments against adding to what the hon. Member himself thinks is an existing evil, the statement that he has just made is one of the most conclusive.
The Solicitor-General says it is impossible to make allowance for improvements of this kind, or for agricultural improvements, because they go so far back. Surely it is open to the Government, if they want a practical valuation, to meet this case by inserting a time limit. It is not necessary to go back to the time of Noah and the Flood, but it ought to be possible to have a time limit. We would certainly consider a time limit—[Interruption.] The Solicitor-General is not even taking a datum line from the present, so as to make allowance for future improvements, with regard to which there really cannot be any of the difficulties to which he has just referred. I thought we should have had support from all quarters of the Committee for the making of an allowance in the case of reclamation improvements, but in regard to garden cities, at any rate, we are on stronger ground in asking for help. I would ask the representatives of the Liberal party who are present what they would do in this matter. Here is the statement of principles made on the Budget of 1909–10, and those principles apply to-day just as much as they applied then. I quote the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George):
What have the Government done to meet the case of the garden cities? They have first of all included in the Bill the provision that all the money spent in preparing them for development should be deducted.
To start with, therefore, they have made a deduction for improvements in the matter of roads. Now I come to the gift of lands:
They have also got in this very Clause an amendment which provides that any part of the total value which is proved to the Commissioners to be directly attributable to the appropriation of any land, or to the gift of any land by any person interested in the land, for the purpose of streets, roads, parks, squares, gardens or other open spaces for the use of the public "—
there, again, he exempted the gift of land for roads and open spaces; and he added:
Under this provision, if a whole area in the middle of a town is left unbuilt upon as part of a plan to give air space and to provide lungs for the locality, there will be exemption from the duty.
A lot of lungs the Government and those who support them will leave for any person in the locality under the provisions of this Bill. The Town and Country Planning Bill is a different question. Any part, however, that is played by this Bill will be one of depriving the community of any chance that they may have had of those lungs to which the hon. Member for Burslem, quite naturally, and we agree with him, attaches such value. The statement of principles further said—and this is the statement, which animated the Liberal party through the mouth of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in regard to the Budget of 1909–10—
The growth in the value more especially of urban sites is due to no expenditure of capital or thought on the part of the ground owner, but is entirely owing to the energy of the community. Where, however, it is not due to that cause, and where it is due to any expenditure by the urban owner himself, full credit ought to be given to him in taxation, and full credit will be given to him in taxation.
Let nobody imagine—I wonder if the Solicitor-General really did imagine—that that was extorted from the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was not. That was his statement in his Budget speech, and that was the principle he laid down from the very beginning. I ask, what is going to be done by this Government? Are they going to try to meet the hard cases of which the Solicitor-General admits there may be a number, and of which I am sure the
President of the Board of Trade knows there is a large number? Are they going to try to meet those cases of hardship from the point of view of justice to the owner who spends money on developing his estate, or to the community? I ask hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, are they going to support an Amendment of this kind in order to see that proper allowance is made for improvements by the owner? That was the inherent principle stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in introducing his Budget. So far as I know, neither he nor any member of the Liberal party has ever departed from that principle since. That was the principle on which he relied when he made this statement:
I think I am entitled to say, not merely that there is no trace of the mean and contemptible spirit of revenge with which we are charged, but that we are dealing honestly with them.
If hon. Members below the Gangway will support the making of some allowance for improvements by owners, we shall know that they are true to the principles they have stated. If hon. Members opposite refuse to do so, then all I can say is that the spirit which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs then disclaimed— the mean and contemptible spirit of revenge "—will aptly and truly apply to the present Government, and also the fact that they are dealing dishonestly with this question and are dealing with it unjustly and to the detriment of the community.

Mr. MANDER: I am glad that the Government have expressed themselves as unable to accept this Amendment. Although I think there is a great deal in what has been said on this subject, I feel that the particular proposal which has been put down is quite impracticable, and would be fatal in a very large degree to the land values taxation scheme. No doubt by some Members it is so intended. That, however, does not mean that we do not feel that there may be cases in which certain steps ought to be taken. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) has quoted from speeches made by the Leader of this party in the past, and he asks, in effect why these words, taken from my right hon. Friend's speech on the Budget of 1909–10, cannot be accepted
by us now. As has been pointed out by the Solicitor-General, my right hon. Friend warned the Government against accepting the many exceptions which he felt obliged to accept at that time, and that is a very good reason why these very extensive words should not be used. If the terms of this Amendment were really carried out, it would be necessary to go back to the creation of the world, to the very beginning of time, when the earth first began to solidify, and that, of course, it would be impossible for any valuer to do.
There may, however, be cases where some exception should be made, and I was glad to hear the Solicitor-General say that the Government would be prepared to consider suggestions from any part of the House for dealing with specific cases if suitable words could be found. The right hon. Member for Tamworth suggested a time limit, and that is one possibility. It might also be practicable to deal with the matter by saying that, in the case of a man who has himself spent time and money in developing his land, an exception might be made, but not in the case of the successors to" such a man—not in the case of people who had purchased the land with all the improvements ready made, but in the case of the original individual or company who carries out the development, and whom we all want to encourage in every possible way. I gather that the Government would be willing to consider cases of that kind, and personally I think that a strong case could be made out for some special condition.
Criticisms have been made from time to time during these Debates as to the hardship and injustice entailed on the unfortunate—or fortunate—possessors of land in selecting that particular commodity for taxation, and the question has been asked, why has land been chosen as against other things? I submit that the plain and simple answer is that for many years past it has been the known and settled policy of the Liberal party and of the Labour party to take the first available opportunity to go in for the taxation of land values, so that anybody who purchased or developed land did so with their eyes open; they had due notice, and therefore no hardship exists when those who promised that they would do certain
things actually come to Parliament and attempt to do them.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: I desire to comment on two of the speeches that have been made this afternoon. The first is the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). It was to the effect that, so long as the Government could impose the tax and get the money, the justice of the scheme did not matter. I cannot congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his views, but I cannot help thinking that, when that speech is seen in print and studied, the Government will find, not for the first time, that he is rather an uncomfortable ally to have.
The other speech to which I wish to refer is that of the Solicitor-General. He pointed out that, in order to understand the way this Bill would affect owners who had constructed roads, it was necessary to look at more than one part of the Bill. That is undoubtedly true. It is necessary, as a matter of fact, to look at Clause 8 (1) which deals with roads on the particular land unit, Clause 8 (5) which deals with roads on adjoining land. Clause 27 which deals with the definition of the term "road," and Schedule 1 (c), which deals with liability to repair highways by reason of tenure. If we consider the combined effect of those four parts of the Bill, we shall come to the conclusion that, where the owner has constructed a road upon a given land unit or upon adjoining land which may not for the purposes of the Bill form part of that land unit, he will, in effect, pay tax upon that improvement.
The Solicitor-General made a great point of the fact that, while the road can only be used by the man who made it, it will not be taken into account for the purposes of taxation. He explained that the idea was that the man should drive, say, a side road from the main arterial road and that he should not be taxed upon the value of that road until other persons were entitled to use it. He went on to describe how a builder developing an estate in such a way would sell first the house next to the main road, then the house next to that, and so on, and that, as each house was sold, the portion of the road over which the purchaser had the right to go in order to
get to the main road would be taken account of for the purpose of this tax. That is making rather a big assumption. Why should we assume that the plot of land next to the highway is going to be the first plot that the man who is developing the estate is able to get rid of? It may not follow that that is the case at all. Let us assume that there are 10 plots along the road at right-angles to the highway. It may be that it is the furthest from the highway which is the first disposed of, and, if that were the case, the Solicitor-General made it clear that the original owner who is developing the property would have to bring into account, for the purpose of this tax, the value of the whole road, because over the whole length of it another person beside himself would have the right to go. For that reason, it is broadly true to say that for, at any rate, a considerable period the man who has made that road as an improvement on his property would pay an annual tax upon the value that he had created entirely by his own enterprise and his own capital.
To my mind that is not all. In any case, the owner of the land unit who develops it by building that road will, in effect, be taxed upon the full value of that road when he sells his property. Consider what happens. A man developing an estate builds a side road leading away from the main highway. Let us assume that one of the plots is worth, with its house, somewhere about £1,200. It is common ground that the effect of this annual tax, if you capitalise it, is equivalent to somewhere about a twelfth of the value. Therefore, a man who was prepared to pay £1,300 for the house before the Bill was passed would now be prepared to pay £1,200 for it, because really that will be the same thing. He would pay the £1,200 to the man from whom he bought the house and he would pay the equivalent of the other £100 in taxation. Therefore, by paying £1,200 after the Bill passes, he would be in the same position as if he paid £1,300 before the Bill was passed. If that is a true view of the position, surely, when the building owner who has made the road sells the property, he will get a twelfth less than he would have got if this tax did not exist, calculating that twelfth on the value of the land, the buildings and the roads which form part of the
new land value. Therefore, it seems to me that, when the building owner has built the houses and sells the plots, he will find that he gets a diminished value for what he sells, the difference between what he would have got and what he gets being accounted for by the tax. Therefore, he is, in effect, bearing the capitalised value of the tax at the time that he sells. If I have made myself clear, I should be obliged if the President of the Board of Trade will tell me, if there is a fallacy in the argument, where it lies.

This question of roads is vitally important in the development of property for housing purposes. You cannot do much until you build your road, and to the extent to which you are prepared to spend money on roads will very largely depend the kind of way in which you develop your property. Take the case of a property like the Welwyn Garden City where the houses are more scattered than is usual in a town of that size. Obviously, that means that in respect of each house there is a greater area of roads than there would be in more close development. I take it that we are all agreed that it is desirable to avoid, as far as we can, over close development of towns in future. We have suffered from it very much in the past. All the supporters of town-planning schemes are at one as to the desirability of allowing for a reasonable proportion of open space and of keeping houses a reasonable distance apart. All that means an extra area given up to roads, and therefore the question *of the roads is of absolutely vital importance. I hope that we shall receive from the Treasury Bench an answer to the question, whether, when the building owner sells a plot with the house built upon it, he in fact pays a capitalised value of the tax in the diminished price that he gets in consequence for his property.

Mr. ROSS: In approaching this matter in which we are starting more or less on a new idea in taxation, it is of the first importance that we should try to get every analogy which can usefully be applied and which is within the experience of British legislation. I would refer the Government to the experience which they can get from the old systems of Irish land tenure. There was this distinction between the land tenure in England and land tenure in Ireland which
was vital and which brought about most of the troubles connected with Irish land—and as hon. Members will remember they were many—that in Ireland, as opposed to England, the tenant generally did his own improvements and that he had his rent raised when he had done those improvements. In England the system which was more usual, if it was not always the case, was for the landlord to do the improvements. The effect of such proceedings was most discouraging to anyone who wished to do anything to improve his holding. We shall have precisely the same effect produced by this Bill unless it is considerably amended and unless the landlord is excused and given relief for what he has done to his own building. We found at that time an entire difference of feeling among the tenants as regards land in Ireland and land in England. In England there was no seriously bitter feeling; in Ireland there was much bitter feeling.
If this Bill is passed unamended, you will have precisely the same feeling here, but it will be against the Government rather than against the landlord. A man will be taxed upon a principle which is wholly opposed to the public interest. Taxes against public interests are by no means unknown. It is always a temptation to a Government to tax something which is easily taxable. There are numerous instances in the history of this country. There was the window tax. Because windows could easily be counted and measured the Government of the day thought that they were a suitable subject to tax. In Greece under the Turks they even taxed trees. Trees are almost an improvement of land. You might almost consider that that is a direct analogy of what is proposed in the present Bill, and yet for convenience the Government of Greece, at that time the Turkish Government, because they found that trees were easily enumerated, because they could see how many trees there were upon any property, put a tax upon them.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): The Amendment under discussion now is not the taxation of land but the exemption of certain forma of improvement from taxation.

Mr. ROSS: With great respect, Mr. Dunnico, I am surely entitled to indulge in an analogy before proceeding to deal
with landlords' improvements. If I am to be restrained and prevented from alluding to taxes on the same principles —because this is a novel proposal——

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member appeared to be emphasising his objection to the taxation of land because it was easy and using as an illustration instances of the taxation of trees and windows. I again point out to the hon. Member that we are not discussing the taxation of land, but whether certain forms of improvement on the land should be exempted from the tax. The hon. Member must not lecture the Chair in this way.

Mr. ROSS: With great respect, Mr. Dunnico, I enjoy my lectures from the Chair, and I would be the last to enter into competition, because I know that I cannot do it. I can assure you, with the utmost respect, if you were sensitive in that respect and thought that I was lecturing the Chair, that it was my inept-ness, and that nothing was further from my desire than to lecture the Chair or to give any appearance of lecturing the Chair. I was, unfortunately, trying to give an illustration which suited the occasion, and, if my illustration was an unfortunate one and if you thought that I adopted an attitude which was not becoming, I sincerely apologise. I assure you that the last thing I had in mind was to lecture the Chair, which would be most unbecoming and unsuitable. I hope that I should be the last Member in this House to do such a thing. I will leave my trees in Greece and in Turkey and come back to the old point.
I was trying to emphasise the point that improvements as such should be encouraged and that any taxation which puts a burden upon improvements is, in its very essence, wrong. Landlords are a much abused class—landlords even in my own country have been criticised before now—and, if they effect improvements, they should not be taxed upon them. What should be taxed are not improvements, but things which definitely make the situation, either in the country as a whole or of a particular class, worse. If improvements are to be discouraged, there will be less improvement. We do not want to discourage improvements. Landlords, almost more than any other class, have been held up to obliquy, criticism,
and even to abuse, and, if improvements are to be taxed and not exempted, surely you are clinching at the very outset any possibility of reforming a class which hon. Members opposite seem to think requires reforming. They ought to be encouraged. An improvement by a landlord definitely involves the betterment of the lot of the tenant. If it does not, it is not an improvement. Yet we have a proposal to put a tax upon an action which even hon. Members opposite could not in their more lucid moments refrain from calling good. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted, because, unless it is accepted, the Bill will involve a principle which is wholly unsound, and which will have the effect of worsening the attitude of landlords as a class to their tenants and making the position of tenants as a class more unfortunate than it is at present.

Viscount WOLMER: I want to give the right hon. Gentleman opposite a typical example of the way in which this part of the Bill will affect a great many landlords. I wish to quote what I believe is a common and ordinary case, and I do so because I have obtained the permission of the gentleman to whom it refers to give the Committee the facts and figures, including his name and the position of the property. I cannot go into the details as fully as I would wish, but if any hon. Member would like to see the further facts I should be very delighted to show them to him. The case refers to an area of ground in my constituency of 252 acres, belonging to Mr. Robert Seton. The land has been in his possession and that of his father for many years. In 1903 he decided to develop part of the estate as a golf course. Up to that time it had all been let as agricultural land. In 1903, Mr. Seton took over 184 acres out of the total estate and proceeded to develop it as the Bramshott Colf Course, on which I have no doubt hon. Members in various quarters of the House have played. In the course of a number of years he spent £10,200 in developing the land as a golf course. He did it, of course, as a commercial proposition.
The development has been of great benefit to the locality. In the first place, 20 men are regularly employed on these 184 acres, whereas only two or three were employed before. Therefore, it has increased the employment in the neighbourhood.
As an amenity to the neighbourhood everybody has benefited from it, except the man who made the speculation. He has only got 3 per cent. on his money, including any money that he may have received by the sale of land on the rest of his property. Mr. Seton makes no complaint of that. It was a commercial risk that he took, a large risk. He had to take money out of trust funds in order to do it, and he invested the money in a very worthy object. When the Government valuer under this Bill comes to value the remainder of the land, it seems to me that he will be bound to say: "This land has a first-class golf links adjacent to it. Therefore, it has a building value and I am going to value it at a higher figure than I should have done if it had not got a golf links adjacent to it." Not only will this landowner have spent his money for a very inadequate return—having sold trust securities which brought in 4 per cent. and used the money for a purpose which has only brought in a return of 3 per cent.—but he will be taxed, in addition, on his remaining land because of the enterprise that he showed and the risk he took, which has been for the benefit of the neighbourhood and of the whole community.
I submit to hon. Members opposite that this is a perfectly fair and, I believe, not at all uncommon case. What the Government are doing, in effect, is to tax people on the enterprise that they have shown. They say that they are merely taxing them on the site value created by the community, but here is an example, and I do not think that it is an uncommon example, where a man has practically created the whole of the site value of his remaining land by the amount of money that he has spent on the development of these very good golf links. On what principle of equity can it be said that his taxation on his remaining land ought to be increased? This landowner cannot be accused of holding up land against the public. Since 1918, four neighbouring councils have been offered land for working class houses, but each have rejected it. No offer to develop the land has been received by the landlord, save for one small house, of one acre, in 1924. Three agricultural cottages were built on neighbouring land by the landlord's father. That is the only building development that has taken place on the
land, simply because this gentleman has made what has turned out to be an unfortunate speculation, financially. He makes no ground of complaint there, but it is hard that hon. Members opposite should come down and tax his remaining property more heavily simply on account of the money he has spent in developing the golf links.
This man would have been very much better off if he had undertaken no such development. The golf course is rated, I think, at £394. If it had remained as agricultural land it would have been derated. Therefore, he has already been rated to that extent on account of the golf course. If he had kept his money in trustee securities and had not risked it on this enterprise, he would have been very much better off. What is the justice in taxing him heavily because he has added a theoretical value to his remaining property which he has been unable to realise?

Mr. KNIGHT: The Noble Lord has said that three neighbouring authorities had refused to buy a portion of land from this owner. Was it because of the price that he was asking for it?

Viscount WOLMER: He offered the land in 1918 to the local authorities for working class houses, and it was rejected.

HON. MEMBERS: At what price?

Mr. KNIGHT: What price was asked?

Viscount WOLMER: I have not the actual price at which the land was offered, but I can assure hon. Members, from my knowledge of the neighbourhood, that it could not be an exorbitant sum, because it is all agricultural land. There is no town in the immediate vicinity. The price of building land in that neighbourhood would not, I imagine, be more than £100 or £200 an acre. The point is that the landlord has received no offer for the value except one, which I gather he accepted, and he may be taxed on a hypothetical value of £100 or £200 per acre on the remaining agricultural land which he is unable to realise, solely on account of the fact that he has sunk £10,000 in developing this property. That is a case which shows the injustice of this form of taxation, and the net result will be to discourage landlords from developing their land, risking their money and giving employment, because
they know that the more they raise the value of their own property the higher they will be taxed by hon. Members opposite.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: May I reply to the point put by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis). He gave an instance of a house which cost £1,300 and said that the net result of the Land Tax would be to reduce the value on the sale of that house by £100. His figures are quite wrong because he has taken the Land Tax on the value of the house, not on the site value. It may be roughly taken in a case of that sort that the value of the house as to the site will be about four to one, so that if the hon. Member reduces his figure by one-fifth it is about £20.

Mr. LEWIS: The question I put was whether, if a building owner sold part of his estate on which he had built a house, he would not in effect pay the capitalised value of the tax on the land unit including the full value of any roads he had built?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The answer is that it entirely depends on the state of the market. It depends on how many houses are available and how many people there are to buy. That is what fixes the price of houses and nothing else.

Sir BOYD MERRIMAN: I hope the Solicitor-General- is going to deal with the case put by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), but, before he does so, may I ask him this question? The grievance, as stated by my Noble Friend, is that the land around the Bramshott Golf Course, in the ownership of the man who made the golf course, was enhanced by the existence of the golf course on which he had spent money and that it is unfair that a Land Tax should be exactly on that enhanced value. But does the matter end there? I knew nothing of this particular case, but it occurred to me as my Noble Friend was speaking that there is this other feature, that this additional taxation will not be limited to the remaining acres adjacent to the golf courses, and in the same ownership, but will be levied upon the golf links themselves. Those who know the Bramshott
Golf Links, as I do from one or two visits, will know that the two main features of that course, as on some other golf links in Surrey, are grass and heather. For the purposes of this valuation it is to be assumed that the club house and the caddy shed are removed from the land. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the bunkers!"] If they are structural bunkers; but there are plenty of bunkers on the Bramshott Golf Course which are not made structurally. Apart from a frivolous point of that sort, the feature of the Bramshott Golf Course, in common with other Surrey golf courses, is the excellent turf on the one hand, upon which you are expected to keep, and the excellent heather on the other into which, unfortunately, you sometimes wander. These two things are to be assumed to be remaining there. Is the valuer to come along and say: "I see a perfectly good golf course 180 acres in extent. I am going to levy a tax on the footing that it is a perfectly good golf course, and also levy a tax on the surrounding land on the footing that it has been enhanced by the presence of the golf course."

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I will try to reply to the hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman), avoiding, of course, the bunkers. The real point seems to be that the gentleman who developed this unfortunate speculation of a golf course with trust funds expected that he would raise the value of the land around the golf course, but has failed to do so, because he is unable to obtain purchasers at £100 to £200 per acre. When the valuer comes along he will not put a high value upon it because all the results of the sale of land in the district will show him that it is not saleable at that price.

Viscount WOLMER: The Solicitor-General will agree, no doubt, that the value is bound to be higher than it was when it was heather?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I quite agree that probably it will be, but the point of the Noble Lord was that this land would have a high value put upon it, presumably about £200 per acre, but the fact is that the value would not be anything like as high. As regards the point that the golf links will be taxed, of course they will, and a value will be put
upon them for whatever purpose they might be sold in the open market, one of which would be as a golf course. Apart from any question as to the taxation of playing fields, which is to be considered later in the Bill, they will be taxed. The position under the Amendment we are discussing would, as far as I can see, be exactly similar. There is no suggestion that the value of the golf course should be deducted under the Amendment, unless the Noble Lord thinks that a golf course comes into the category of an open space for the use of the public.

Viscount WOLMER: I ought to explain to the Solicitor-General that I was speaking by leave of the Chair to an Amendment of mine which specifically deals with this point, and which will be found on page 1815, but, owing to the procedure under which we are working, it-was impossible to discuss that Amendment. If the Solicitor-General is willing to redress the grievance of my constituent, he will have to pass my Amendment on page 1815.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid that Amendment of the Noble Lord

would not accomplish what he desires. It says:
When the owner of a land unit satisfies the Commissioners that the value thereof at the valuation date is due in whole or in part to the expenditure of money by the owner upon the development, or upon the preservation of the amenities, thereof.

It does not refer to neighbouring land. The expenditure on the golf course is not on any land unit which surrounds the golf course.

Viscount WOLMER: They are all part of the same property.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This deals with a land unit and the land unit which will be valued is not all the same. It will be different units in different occupation. The golf course, presumably, is occupied by the golf course.

Viscount WOLMER: The Solicitor-General admits the soundness of my object, and I shall be glad of his assistance to give effect to it by any Amendment he may be good enough to propose.

Question put, "That the word 'or' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 199.

Division No. 292.]
AYES.
[8.54 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Cameron. A. G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Adamson. W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cape, Thomas
Groves, Thomas E.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Grundy, Thomas W.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Chater, Daniel
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Clarke, J. S.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Alpass, J. H.
Cluse, W. S.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Ammon, Charles George
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Angell, Sir Norman
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Harbord, A.


Arnott, John
Compton, Joseph
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)


Attlee, Clement Richart
Cove, William G.
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)


Ayles, Walter
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Harris, Percy A.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Daggar, George
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Dallas, George
Haycock, A. W.


Barnes, Alfred John
Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Barr, James
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield


Batey, Joseph
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Herriotts, J.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hicks, Ernest George


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Dukes, C.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Duncan, Charles
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Ede, James Chuter
Hoffman, P. C.


Benson, G.
Edge, Sir William
Hopkin, Daniel


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Edmunds, J. E.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Birkett, W. Norman
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Egan, W. H.
Isaacs, George


Bowen, J. W.
Elmley, Viscount
Jenkins, Sir William


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Foot, Isaac
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Brockway, A. Fenner
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Bromfield, William
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Bromley, J.
Gibbins, Joseph
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Brooke, W.
Gill, T. H.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Brothers, M.
Gillett, George M.
Kelly, W. T.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Glassey, A. E.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Gossling, A. G.
Kinley, J.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Gould, F.
Kirkwood, D.


Buchanan, G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Knight, Holford


Burgess, F. G.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm, (Edin., Cent.)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Gray, Milner
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Lawrence, Susan
Naylor, T. E.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Cattle)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Snewden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Leach, W.
Oldfield, J. R.
Snowden. Thomas (Accrington)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Sorensen, R.


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Lees, J.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Stephen, Campbell


Leonard, W.
Palin, John Henry
Strauss, G. R.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Paling, Wilfrid
Sullivan, J.


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Palmer, E. T.
Sufton, J. E.


Logan, David Gilbert
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Longbottom, A. W.
Perry, S. F.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Longden, F.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Thurtle, Ernest


Lunn, William
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Tinker, John Joseph


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Pole, Major D. G.
Toole, Joseph


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Potts, John S.
Tout, W. J.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Price, M. P.
Townend, A. E.


McElwee, A.
Quibell, D. F. K.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


McEntee, V. L.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Turner, Sir Ben


McKinlay, A.
Raynes, W. R.
Vaughan, David


MacLaren, Andrew
Richards, R
Viant, S. P.


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Walkden, A. G.


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Walker, J.


McShane, John James
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wallace, H. W.


Malone, C. L Estrange (N'lhampton)
Ritson, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Roberts, Ht. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Manning, E. L.
Romeril, H. G.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Mansfield, W.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wedgwood. Rt. Hon. Josiah


March, S.
Rowson, Guy
Wellock, Wilfred


Marcus, M.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Markham, S. F.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Marley, J.
Sanders, W. S.
West, F. R.


Marshall, Fred
Sandham, E.
Westwood, Joseph


Mathers, George
Sawyer, G. F.
White, H. G.


Maxton, James
Scurr, John
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Messer, Fred
Sexton, Sir James
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Middleton, G.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Mills, J. E.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Milner, Major J.
Sherwood, G. H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Montague, Frederick
Shield, George William
Wilson. C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Shillaker, J. F.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Morley, Ralph
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Simmons, C. J.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Wise, E. F.


Mort, D. L.
Sinkinson, George
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Muff, G.
Sitch, Charles H.



Muggeridge, H. T.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES —


Murnin, Hugh
Smith. Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Charleton.


Nathan, Major H. L.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Albery. Irving James
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Butler, R. A
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davison, Sir W- H. (Kensington, S.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfred W.
Campbell, E. T.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Aske, Sir Robert
Carver, Major W. H.
Duckworth, G. A. V.


Astor, Viscountess
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Eden, Captain Anthony


Atholl, Duchess of
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Atkinson, C.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
England Colonel A.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset. Weston-s.-M.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Cecil, fit. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Balniel, Lord
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Ferguson, Sir John


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Fermoy, Lord


Beaumont, M. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Fielden, E. B.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Chapman, Sir S.
Fison, F. G. Clavering


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Christie, J. A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bird, Ernest Roy
Colfox, Major William Philip
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Boothby, R. J. G.
Colman, N. C. D.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Colville, Major D. J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Cooper, A. Duff
Gower, Sir Robert


Boyce, Leslie
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Bracken, B.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cowan, D. M.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Brass. Captain Sir William
Cranborne, Viscount
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Briscoe, Richard George
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Gunston, Captain D. W


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Croom-Johnton, R. P.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Buchan, John
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)




Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Smith Carington, Neville W.


Hammersley, S. S.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Smithers, Waldron


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Somerset, Thomas


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Haslam, Henry C.
Muirhead, A. J.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
O'Connor, T. J.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thompson, Luke


Hurd, Percy A.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Thomson, Sir F.


Inskip, Sir Thomas
Power, Sir John Cecil
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Iveagh, Countess of
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Purbrick, R.
Train, J.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ramsbotham, H.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Reid, David D, (County Down)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Knox, Sir Alfred
Remer, John R.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Warrender, Sir Victor


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Wells, Sydney R.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Ross, Ronald D.
Wilton, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Salmon, Major I.
Withers, Sir John James


Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Womersley, W. J.


Long, Major Hon. Eric
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Savery, S. S.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Simms, Major-General J.



Margesson, Captain H. D.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Skelton, A. N.
Sir George Penny and Captain Wallace.


Meller, R. J.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hailam)



Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment, consequential upon the Amendment which the Committee has just divided upon, and I understand that by agreement it is desired that it should be taken without discussion. Between that consequential Amendment and the Amendment on which we have just taken a Division, there is an Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastlo-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) which I propose to call.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 28 and 29.
I am much obliged to you, Mr. Dunnico, for allowing me to move this Amendment. These are the lines which exclude minerals from the purview of the tax. To me, personally, the omission of minerals from the taxation of land values is a most serious flaw in this otherwise excellent Bill. My constituency is largely a mining constituency; a large number of pits there have been closed down, and the majority of my mining constituents are out of work. I had hoped that the taxation of land values, including minerals, would do something for those men by opening up the ungotten minerals of North Staffordshire to their use. But it will do nothing of the kind if those minerals are excluded. The reason given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for
the exclusion of minerals from the Bill was that the Government intended to nationalise minerals. I do not believe that in the present financial position of the country it is possible to nationalise minerals but even if they were nationalised, I conceive that it would be of enormous assistance to a just nationalisation of minerals if they could be valued first, so that the nation might know what it ought to pay for them. The absence of a valuation would make nationalisation more difficult and more expensive.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am a little in doubt as to the exact meaning of this Amendment. Is not the effect of it to impose a charge?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): On that point I am afraid, there can be no doubt, because it would lead, of course, to a valuation of minerals and therefore to an additional charge in that respect, and there would be the tax as well.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I submit that it is usual to allow greater latitude during the Committee stage than during the Report stage in these matters. I realise that in the Report stage it would be impossible to take an Amendment which increased the charge, but in the Committee stage one may often argue
a question on the merits although the actual proposal put forward might result in larger taxation. I would also point out that, particularly in this Bill, it does not follow that because an item is valued, it is therefore taxed. There are items here which will be valued but will not involve taxation. I submit that it would be within the bounds of order to suggest that the valuation—which is all we are dealing with—should extend to minerals.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Unfortunately, the Resolution of Ways and Means is not conveniently near at the moment. Am I to understand that this matter is covered by that Resolution?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes, the Resolution covers it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If so, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can proceed.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: With great respect, may I submit that the effect of the Amendment would be to increase the amount of tax which the owner would have to pay, over and above what is set down in the Bill now.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: On the Resolution which was carried in Ways and Means, no distinction was drawn between surface values and mineral values. It was only when the Bill was introduced that that distinction was drawn. Therefore I submit that this Amendment comes within the Resolution carried in Ways and Means, and is in order now.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the Amendment is covered by the Ways and Means Resolution, as I understand it is, then the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may proceed. An Amendment which imposes a charge is not necessarily out of order if it is covered by the terms of the Money Resolution.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I promise the Committee to be as brief as possible. I know it is a hopeless fight and that it is impossible to have minerals included, but I wish to point out two things in connection with this exemption. In the first place, if minerals are exempted there will be no inducement upon owners of mines which have closed down to allow lessees to get the minerals on cheaper
terms. Directly a pit closes, not only Schedule A, but also the rates cease to operate, and the exemption from Schedule A and from rates which follows the closing of a pit, is almost an incentive to the closing of pits. If, however, we had a tax on mineral values, whether the minerals were being worked or not, it would be a perpetual incentive to owners to allow those minerals to be got. They would allow the minerals to be got at cheaper royalties than are now charged, and people who wanted to get coal would be able to get it.
In my opinion, the reason why minerals have been ruled out, is because, under recent arrangements there is rationalisation in the coal industry and restriction of production intended to keep up price. You exempt minerals on the ground that increased production would be undesirable at the present time. I think it is desirable. I want more work and more coal and cheaper coal for industry. Exactly the same argument which is used in defence of the Bill as regards building, can be applied to the inclusion of minerals in the Bill. We want cheaper coal just as we want cheaper land. We want cheaper land for houses just as we want cheaper coal for our industries. Anything which would put an annual tax on mineral values would increase production and reduce price.
I pass on to the real and serious difference which the exclusion of minerals makes to the valuation. At present, in nine cases out of ten where land changes hands, what actually changes hands is the whole of the value of land plus minerals. It is very rarely that minerals are sold separately from the surface rights. Therefore, the valuers, necessarily, must be guided by transactions which have taken place in land and they are ruled out of taking nine-tenths of those transactions. The ordinary transaction is concerned with land and minerals combined. Here you are directing the valuers to exclude from their valuation, by a process of reasoning, the value of the minerals. I ask any hon. Member who is a landowner whether he can say what would be the value of his land if it were stripped of minerals? Every man knows what the value of his land is as it stands. No one knows better than the owner of the land what it is worth. But if you ask him to estimate the value of his land without the minerals in it, you are
setting him, just as you are setting the valuers, a very difficult task.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Supposing he has not any minerals. There are no minerals in my land.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am glad of that interruption. My land, in my own opinion, has not any minerals, and I think most landowners in this country are under the impression that their land has not any minerals, but, if you look at the definition of minerals in this Bill, you will see that every piece of land has mineral value. You will see that the definition of minerals includes:
all minerals and substances in or under land of a kind ordinarily worked for removal by underground or by surface working.
The insertion of those words "or by surface working" includes in minerals all sorts of subjects which we do not necessarily or normally consider to be minerals. It includes, for instance, gravel; it includes clay, sand, stone, lime, even earth; in fact, everything under the surface, according to this definition, is a mineral, and the valuers are asked to value the land without those minerals.

Brigadier-General BROWN: What about water?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Water had not occurred to me, but I do not think that any law court would call water a mineral. This definition of minerals, to my mind, makes the valuation of land under this Bill hopeless, because it is inconceivable that land should have a value if you deduct from it everything on which the surface is land. Some hon. Friends and I have put down an Amendment later on to alter that definition, but under the operation of the guillotine I fear that that Amendment may not be moved, and I wish to take the opportunity of this speech to get from the Government some assurance that there will be a modification of that definition of minerals which will enable the valuation to be made.
I hate giving personal experiences, but I think it is necessary here. My own property, where I live, is largely gravel. It is within three miles of a town, and it covers a great deal of wood-land. It is possible that under this Bill I might be taxed on my land value,
though I think I could find a way out. Undoubtedly I am in a very strong position. If they ask me what the value of my land is, stripped of the gravel on which it stands—I work that gravel myself, I know its value, I can swear to its value, I can prove its value to the satisfaction of the valuer—and if I deduct that from my land value, I can show that the land value of my property is well below its cultivation value, in which case I escape, of course. I am afraid that in this matter I am not unique. Other owners of land may feel in the same way as I do. It is only just to get a land value which will accord with the definition prescribed in the Bill, and in that case everybody whose property is on valuable gravel or valuable sand—sand has a considerable market too—will be able to show that land value under this Bill is a negligible quantity and that the real value of that property is the sand, or gravel, or stone on which it stands.
I wish to speak also on this question from the point of view of the potting industry. The potting industry has, as its Taw material, clay. That cannot be news to any Member of this Committee. The clay, the china clay, and the china stone, comes from Cornwall. Almost the only country in the world which produces china clay and china stone is Cornwall. They have a monopoly. There is also, naturally, where you get a monopoly, a ring. The price of china clay and of china stone is everything that the consumer can pay—not a competitive price, but a monopoly price. Not the whole of the fields of china clay and china stone in Cornwall is worked, but a certain amount only—just as much as the industry can swallow. If china clay were excluded from this valuation, there would be no inducement, other than there is at present, for the owners of it to work their property. On the ether hand, if china clay were included in the valuation and excluded from the definition of minerals, we should find a normal incentive for the people who would have to pay their tax upon their clay value year after year to get somebody to develop that property. There would be an increased supply; the ring would find it more difficult to keep up prices; the potting trade would get a cheaper raw material: your cups and saucers would
be cheaper on your tea-table; the export trade would develop, and more people would be employed in the potting industry.
That is an admirable example of what the taxation of land value, rightly applied, must amount to. Cannot you give us some hope for the potting trade and for employment on these lines? I do not want—it is useless unless the Opposition will support me—to press for the inclusion of mineral value in the Bill now, but it is not impossible to beg the Government to give to the word "minerals" a reasonable definition, which shall allow us to include in the tax, not coal or iron, not those materials that are normally got by underground working, not those materials that are included in all the Acts of Parliament that have been passed recently dealing with the mining industry, but at least to include in our definition sand, gravel, stone, those minerals that are got by overground working, by open working, as apart from underground working. I feel that in moving that part of the Amendment, at any rate, I must be making things easier for the valuers.
To value property is easy if the property to be valued changes hands from day to day, from month to month, or from year to year. Every time property-changes hands its value is registered at Somerset House, where valuers can keep a check on it. But if what you are to value is something which never changes hands, which is never registered at Somerset House, on which you can keep no check, if it is to be the value of land without the value of the gravel, and sand, and stone and earth on which the land stands, then you are asking the valuers to do something which is impossible. You are making your valuation under this Bill even as impossible or as difficult, expensive and lengthy as was the valuation under the 1909 Act, from which every reasonable person now wishes to get away. Therefore, I beg the Government to consider whether they could not make this concession, could not treat the definition of minerals as something which could be understood by the man in the street, as something which could be realised by the valuer, as something which could make the normal transactions in land a guide to the valuers who have to make the valuation.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I understand that it is the desire of the Committee to have only a brief discussion on this Amendment, and, accordingly, hon. Members will not complain if I reply very shortly indeed. The Committee is well aware that what the Bill proposes is the sale price without regard to the value of minerals or the value of mineral way-leaves, and it is perfectly clear that if anything else were attempted in the Bill, we should be in great difficulty in regard to the valuation. There is, of course, a great distinction in many cases between the ownership of surface minerals and the ownership of minerals below, and it does not end there. There are innumerable problems in connection with the working of minerals, un worked minerals and the rest. Consequently, if the Amendment of my right hon. Friend were accepted, it would be necessary to embark on a highly technical valuation for this purpose which would very seriously delay the valuation of land which is contemplated in the Bill. But that is not the end of the story. As matters stand at present, there is taxation on minerals, the Mineral Rights Duty——

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is only on what is got.

Mr. GRAHAM: Certainly. It is at the rate of 1s. in the £ taken on the rental value or the royalties, and in the case of coal there is the Miners' Welfare Fund levy. These duties are on minerals at present. There is one point which, I think, my right hon. Friend overlooked, or, at all events, stated very briefly. While it is true that the minerals and the value of mineral wayleaves are excluded from the sale price taken in the Bill, when the valuer comes to value it, the minerals are present as support, that is, they are included for the purpose of support, but they have no other purpose as far as this valuation goes. We have already informed the House that we are committed to the public ownership of mineral royalties, and for these reasons I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 39, at the end, to insert the words:
(v) any part of the land value of the unit which—

(a) is directly attributable to works executed or expenditure of a capital
1133
nature (including any expenses of advertisement) incurred bona fide by or on be-half of or solely in the interests of any person interested in the land for the purpose of improving the value of the land as building land or for the purpose of any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture; or
(b) is directly attributable to the appropriation of any land or to the gift of any land by any person interested in the land for the purpose of streets, roads, paths, squares, gardens, or other open spaces for the use of the public; or
(c) is directly attributable to the expenditure of money on the redemption of any tithe, land tax, or any fixed charge, or on the enfranchisement of copyhold land or customary freeholds, or on effecting the release of any covenant or agreement restricting the use of land which

may be taken into account in ascertaining the land value of the land, or to any other matter which is personal to the owner, occupier, or other person interested for the time being in the land.
Where any works executed or expenditure incurred for the purpose of improving the value of the land for agriculture have actually improved the value of the land as building land or for the purpose of any business, trade, or industry other than agriculture, the works or expenditure shall for the purposes of this provision be treated as having been executed or incurred also for the latter purposes.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 266.

Division No. 293.]
AYES.
[9.29 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Albery, Irving James
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfred W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Aske, Sir Robert
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Astor, Viscountess
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Maitlant, Brigadier-General E.


Atholl, Duchess of
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Marjoribanks, Edward


Atkinson, C.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Meller, R. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
England, Colonel A.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Milne, Wardlaw, J. S.


Balniel, Lord
Everard, W. Lindsay
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Beaumont, M. W.
Ferguson, Sir John
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Fielden, E. B.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Muirhead, A. J.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearmaa
Galbraith, J. F. W.
O'Connor, T. J.


Bird, Ernest Ray
Ganzoni, Sir John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Peake, Captain Osbert


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W
Gower, Sir Robert
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Boyce, Leslie
Grace, John
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Bracken, B.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Brass, Captain Sir William
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Purbrick, R.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Ramsbotham, H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Buchan, John
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Renter, John R.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)


Butler, R. A.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hammersley, S. S.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Campbell, E. T.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ross, Ronald D.


Carver, Major w, H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Haslam, Henry C.
Salmon, Major I.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Savery, S. S.


Chamberlain Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Slmms, Major-General J.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Christie, J. A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Skelton, A. N.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Iveagh, Countess of
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Colville, Major D. J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smithers, Waldron


Cooper, A. Duff
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Somerset, Thomas


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cowan, D. M.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Womersley, W. J.


Thompson, Luke
Warrender, Sir Victor
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Thomson, Sir F.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wells, Sydney R.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Titchfield, Major the Marquees of
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)



Train, J.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Turton, Robert Hugh
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Captain Margesson and Sir George penny.


Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Withers, Sir John James



Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Glassey, A. E.
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gossling, A. G.
McShane, John James


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gould, F.
M alone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Manning, E. L.


Alpass, J. H.
Gray, Milner
March, S.


Ammon, Charles George
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marcus, M.


Angell, Sir Norman
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Markham, S. F.


Arnott, John
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Marley, J.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
Marshall, Fred


Ayles, Walter
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mathers, George


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxtor, James


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hall, J. H (Whitechapel)
Messer, Fred


Barnes, Alfred John
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Middleton, G.


Barr, James
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mills, J. E.


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Milner, Major J.


Beckett, John (Camberweil, Peckham)
Harbord, A.
Montague, Frederick


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Morley, Ralph


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morris-Jenes, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Benson, G.
Haycock, A. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Birkett, W. Norman
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mort, D. L.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Herriotts, J.
Muff, G.


Bowen, J. W.
Hicks, Ernest George
Muggeridge, H. T.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Murnin, Hugh


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bromfield, William
Hoffman, P. C.
Naylor, T. E.


Bromley, J.
Hopkin, Daniel
Noel Baker, P. J.


Brooke, W.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Brothers, M.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Oldfield, J. R.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Isaacs, George
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jenkins, Sir William
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Palin, John Henry


Burgess, F. G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Palmer, E. T.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Perry, S. F.


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Cameron, A. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Kinley, J.
Pole, Major D. G.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Potts, John S.


Chater, Daniel
Knight, Holford
Price, M. P.


Clarke, J. S.
Lansbury, Rt Hon. Georgs
Quibell, D. J. K.


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Cocks, Frederick Sevmour
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Raynes, W. R.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Richards, R.


Compton, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cove, William G.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Daggar, George
Leach, W.
Ritson, J


Dallas, George
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Romeril, H. G.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lees, J.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leonard, W.
Rowson, Guy


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dukes, C.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Duncan, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Sanders, W. S.


Ede, James Chuter
Longbottom, A. W.
Sandham, E.


Edge, Sir William
Longden, F.
Sawyer, G. F.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lovat-Fraser, J A.
Scurr, John


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Sexton, Sir James


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Egan, W. H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Elmley, viscount
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sherwood, G. H.


Foot, Isaac
McElwee, A.
Shillaker, J. F.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McEntee, V. L.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Simmons, C. J.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McKinlay, A.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Gibbins, Joseph
Mac Laren, Andrew
Sinkinson, George


Gill, T. H.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Sitch, Charles H.


Gillett, George M.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)




Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Toole, Joseph
West, F. R.


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Tout, W. J.
Westwood, Joseph


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Townend, A. E.
White, H. O.


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Turner, Sir Ben
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Viant, S. P.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Stamford, Thomas W.
Walkden, A. G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Stephen, Campbell
Walker, J.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Strauss, G. R.
Wallace, H. W.
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Sullivan, J.
Watkins, F. C.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sutton, J. E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wilson, R. J. Narrow)


Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Wise, E. F.


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wellock, Wilfred
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Tillett, Ben
Welsh, James (Paisley)



Tinker, John Joseph
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Paling and Mr. Thurtle.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: I beg to move, in page 6, line 8, to leave out paragraph (d).
It is clearly the intention of the Government in framing the Bill in this way that the holder of the land who is the tithe payer shall pay his tax on a value which includes the value of the tithe or tithe rentcharge, but I should like to draw the attention of the learned Solicitor-General to a point which I think must have escaped his notice and the notice of everybody else concerned in the framing of the Bill. Although in Clause 27 of the Bill there is a definition of agricultural land, there is no definition of land in this Bill, and consequently, to get the legal interpretation of land, one has to look to the definition in the Intepretation Act of 1889, where we find that the expression "land" includes messuages, tenements, and hereditaments. Tithe is a hereditament. I expect that the Solicitor-General will say that because tithe is an incorporeal hereditament, this does not apply to it. I would remind him, if he has that answer in his mind, that in the Finance Act of 1909–10, it was thought necessary specifically to exclude incorporeal hereditaments in order to prevent tithe and tithe rentcharge being included in the definition of land which in that Act also had to be defined as in the Interpretation Act of 1889. In Section 41 of the 1910 Act are these words:
The expression 'land' does not include incorporeal hereditaments issuing or granted out of the land.
If it were necessary to exclude tithe there, we may assume, I think rightly, that the absence of any definition of land in this Bill conveys to us that the full definition of land in the interpretation Act must be taken, in which case tithe and tithe rentcharge are hereditaments included as land. If this be so, the
liability for this tax will fall in respect of the same hereditament upon both the tithe payer, who is the owner of the land, and the tithe owner who is the owner of the incorporeal hereditament arising out of the land. Such a monstrous proposition goes beyond even the injustices which are included by the Government in this part of their Finance Bill. I do not want to labour this point; it is sufficient for my purpose to have expressed the opinion that, while it is grossly unjust to include a hereditament which the landowner does not own within the value upon which he is assessed, it is monstrous to add to that a liability for tax upon the true owner of that hereditament as well.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and gallant Member is not quite right in saying that there is no definition of land in this Bill. There is a definition of land units, which is the subject of taxation in Sub-section (3) of Clause 8:
Subject as hereinafter provider, every piece of land in separate occupation at the valuation date shall, for the purposes of this Part of this Act, be a land unit.
I do not think that by any stretch of imagination you could call tithe a piece of land. Therefore, it would not form a land unit for purposes of valuation or tax. That answers the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point as regards the double charge on the tithe both in the case of the payer and the receiver. As regards the other points, I do not think that he raises any question that the right method of dealing with tithe when you are arriving at land values is that you must, of course, exclude it. It is one of the interests in the land, but it is not part of the land value itself, and therefore it would not be right to take it into account at all. I hope that that explains the position to the hon. and gallant Member.

Viscount WOLMER: I do not propose to follow the Solicitor-General or my hon. and gallant Friend in the strictly legal argument, which no doubt will have to be further considered in subsequent stages of this Bill. I want to refer to what is one of the most important issues raised by this paragraph, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman alluded in his concluding sentence. I would like to draw attention to the grave injustice the Government are doing in asking tithe payers to pay this land tax on the tithe, which does not belong to them but which they have to pay to somebody else. I hope I shall have the support of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Kedward) and other hon. Members in the Division Lobby at any rate on this point. I suppose the Government are aware that at this moment of acute agricultural depression, which the Government are doing absolutely nothing to relieve, tithe is pressing with great hardship on certain landowners, particularly owner-occupiers. In some cases, I am assured, the tithe amounts to as much as £l an acre, and even more, which is a great deal more than the rent which the occupiers used to pay for their land. It is perfectly true that when these men bought their land they knew there was a tithe on it, and, accordingly, they paid less for it; but they bought the land in happier circumstances, and the point I wish to make is that they are finding it exceedingly difficult to pay tithe at all. It is an obligation on their land, just like a mortgage, I admit, but they do, in fact, find it exceedingly difficult to meet that charge at this time.
I would draw the attention of the Solicitor-General to the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture to this subject. On 26th February of this year the National Farmers' Union sent a deputation to the Minister of Agriculture to ask for his assistance in the great difficulty which owner-occupiers find in meeting their obligations in respect of tithe. The Minister of Agriculture refused point blank to do anything to help the deputation and this is the reason he gave:
As you know, tithe is a very ancient charge, and it falls not on the occupier but on the owner of the land. The owner, when ho bought the land, did so with the knowledge that there was that annual charge upon it, and that by so much its value was diminished.
I believe that to be a perfectly sound point, but the Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot tell the National Farmers' Union that the value of their land has been diminished by the tithe, and that therefore they are not really the payers of tithe at all, and yet tax them as if the tithe belonged to them. It seems to me monstrously unjust that because a man has to pay a heavy tithe every year to the owner of the tithe therefore we should tax him as if he were the owner of the tithe, which he is not. If we are to tax anybody at all, obviously the person to pay the tax is the tithe owner and not the tithe payer; but the effect of this Sub-section is to put yet another charge on to the shoulders of agriculture. At every step in their legislation the Government proceed without thought as to how it is going to affect the farmers of this country, and they are piling tax upon tax and charge upon charge without doing anything to help the struggling farmers in this period of depression.

Mr. KEDWARD: I cannot help thinking that the Government have not given that consideration to this subject which it deserves, and I feel sure that when they reflect on the terrific burden people are carrying in the shape of tithe-rent charge they will hesitate before they make that burden, already too great, still greater. There are many people who are finding it difficult, owing to agricultural depression, to meet this charge and if an additional charge is laid upon them it will drive many of them into bankruptcy and ruin. In the arable districts people have not the money to pay tithe and are being distrained upon, or threatened with distraint, and I feel sure that when the Government realise the extent of this hardship they will be willing to meet us on this point.
I know one area of land not far from one or our cities which it has been very difficult to let as an agricultural holding. The owner has just let it for a matter of £100 a year. The tithe rent charge upon it is £85 10s. 7d. and the owner has to do repairs. Now we are going to put this extra burden upon that land. I feel sure the Government will give the relief for which this Amendment asks if they have the best interests of agriculture at heart. In a Debate on the Adjournment the other day the Minister of Agriculture
gave a promise that he would look carefully into this matter. He is now considering whether it is possible in any way to give some measure of support to the demands of the tithe payers. While he is seeking to find means of relief which will not be easy, I cannot think the Treasury will impose a heavier burden upon this class of agriculturists. I ask the Government with all earnestness and seriousness, and knowing the desperate state to which these people are reduced, to reconsider this point.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I hesitate to intervene again, but I would like to reply to the two last speakers. I think there really is a misunderstanding. This does not apply to agricultural land at all——[Interruption.] The Noble Lord says that I am wrong, but I think he will agree with me when I have explained that it appears on both sides of the equation by which we arrive at the amount on which agricultural land is taxed. It is both in the land value and in the cultivation value, and, therefore, it will not make any effect on the difference between those two figures, which is what the tax is calculated upon. It is only where land is not agricultural land that any element of the tithe will come in at all. I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate what the position is now that he realises that that is the effect. I quite understand that when one is reading the Bill it looks as if it applied generally, but it cannot come into the amount of the valuation which is liable to tax in the case of agricultural land because the same sum appears both in the plus and the minus elements and therefore cancels itself out. The amount of land which will be affected will be very small indeed, because something like 95 per cent. of tithe is derived from agricultural land and not other land.

Sir T. INSKIP: The Solicitor-General has no doubt stated quite accurately the position with regard to agricultural land. But that statement ought not to delude the Committee into thinking that the Solicitor-General has offered a single word in defence of the proposals in the Bill as it stands. Let us keep our minds on the point, and not be led aside because of the perfectly clear statement which has been made with regard
to agricultural land. The question is whether it is equitable and right that a burden upon the land, which has a bearing on its value, should be included in valuing the land. Consider for a moment the theory which has been advanced to justify this Bill. The theory is that the landlords have grasped the monopoly value of the land, that they have seized it for their own purposes, and employed it to exact rent from poor and needy people who do not share the monopoly of the land. That is the argument which has been advanced from the Government benches and from the back benches opposite. Tithe rent-charge is the old principle that the landlord must
render… unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.
It was a recognition by the law in the early development of the constitution under which we live that the landlord should not be entitled to hold the whole value of this monopoly in land, but that he must render one-tenth part of that to religion, which even in the twentieth century we ought to recognise as deserving of some support. I respectfully challenge the Solicitor-General, or anybody on the Government bench, to contradict my statement that tithe is a surrender—it may be a forcible surrender, some were voluntary and others were forcible surrenders—by the landlord of part of the monopoly value to which hon. Members say the landlord was never entitled. It is really a monstrous thing that the Government, who purport by this Bill to encourage the effort to wrest from the landlord part of the monopoly which he enjoys should actually tax him upon the one-tenth part which 400 or 500 years ago he surrendered.
I notice the obvious anxiety which is displayed upon the benches opposite by all those who attempt to understand this question. [Interruption.] I say by way of a sincere compliment to hon. Members opposite that it is easy for anyone who wishes to shut his ears and his mind to what is contained in this Bill to laugh at my criticism. If one considers the element of this question, I think there is an unanswerable case for omitting from the calculation of the value of the land that part surrendered by the landlord and no longer possessed by him. Therefore,
we ask that the one-tenth which has been surrendered shall be left 10.0 p.m. out. Although we are very bitterly opposed to the Government's proposals, I hope the Government will show themselves capable of making a generous recognition of an argument which they appear to have overlooked. The Solicitor-General says that what is proposed by the Government cannot affect very much land, but that is not an argument of which the Solicitor-General can be very proud. The Solicitor-General has told us that this injustice affects only 5 per cent. of the total land involved, and that it is negligible. If there is an injustice, it should be removed whether it applies to 5 per cent. or 95 per cent. We have now the advantage of having the Prime Minister present. If this is so small a matter involving such a small amount of land, is not that all the more reason why the Government should yield to the plea which has been put forward, because, if this paragraph is left out, it will not affect the principle of the Bill, and it will not destroy the objects of this Measure. We cannot be charged, by moving this Amendment, with trying to destroy the whole scheme. We are pleading for what is obviously a just and equitable Amendment of the Bill, and I hope the Prime Minister will advise his supporters to accept it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not think that there is any injustice at all involved in the proposal contained in the Bill. Hon. Members will recollect the case of a farmer in the Eastern Counties who was sold up for his tithe, and where the neighbours bought up his property for £6 and prevented the tithe collector from getting the tithe. This shows that the tithe payer is in a very hard position owing entirely to the action of the late Government. Therefore, it is useless for hon. Members to blame this Government for what was done by the previous Government.

Viscount WOLMER: On a point of Order, Mr. Dunnico, I should like to know whether other hon. Members will be in order to replying to the arguments now being used by the right hon. and gallant Member for New Castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think there is a great deal in what the Solicitor-General has said. We have included ill the value of the land the value of the tithe on the land, and it is not 10 per cent., but a great deal more than 10 per cent. of the value of the land. We know that agricultural land did not have the cultivation value deducted, but we are imposing upon the landowner a tax upon that value which is properly the property of the Church. Having had the injustice of that so clearly pointed out, I hope we shall have the support of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite for an Amendment to Clause 15 standing in my name, which removes the injustice which has been complained of. It is well known that under this Bill the leaseholder has a right of recovery from the landowner or the feuar of that portion of the land value which is paid to the superior. In my Amendment I propose that the landlord should have the right to recover from the Church that part which is rightly payable by the Church. Somebody owns this land, and the Church owns the greater part of it. In the case of the farmer I have mentioned, who was sold up, the tithe was £200 a year on a farm of 700 acres. The whole of that value does not belong to the occupier, but to the Church, but will the Church pay? My other Amendments to this Bill are in the names of myself and friends, but this is too blasphemous an Amendment to get any name attached to it beside my own. I think, however, that it is quite right that the Church should pay its due. It is one of the biggest landowners of this country through the ownership of tithes, which constitute one of the heaviest burdens upon owner-occupiers in this country. I can tell the Government that nothing would be more popular than allowing the owner to transfer to the Church that part of the Land Value Tax which is properly its due, and I hope that, when we reach my Amendment, we may find some people who are not terrified of the Church and not afraid to secure justice even at her expense.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: In view of the argument put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip)—an argument which, quite frankly, had certainly not appealed to me before, because I had not looked at the matter in that light—the Government, while it is impossible for them actually to
accept this Amendment, are prepared to reconsider it very carefully and try to deal with the matter on the Report stage.

Amendment negatived.

Sir B. MERRIMAN: I beg to move, in page 7, line 35, at the end, to insert the words:
or by reason of any assumption that the land to be valued is the only land or one of a small number of pieces of land vacant or available for development in the immediate neighbourhood.
In moving this Amendment, and the following Amendment, which also stands in my name—in page 7, line 35, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided also that the land unit shall not be valued as if vacant possession were obtainable on the valuation date in any case where there is in existence on the valuation date any statutory restriction which prevents the obtaining of vacant possession of the land unit or of any part there of.
I desire to call attention to the fact that both of these Amendments deal with a point which illustrates the departure from the principle which the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid down in his speech on the 5th May, when he said that the land was to be valued substantially in the state in which land in fact forms the subject of purchase and sale in the market. The first of these Amendments is designed to exclude the possibility of there being added to the value of the land, by reason of the form in which the valuation is laid down, anything in the nature of an artificial monopoly value; and the second Amendment is designed to exclude the possibility of a man being assumed to have vacant possession of land—as the Statute says he is to be assumed to have it—when another Statute says that he is not to have vacant possession. These are the two points in regard to which, as I submit, the valuation laid down in the Bill most definitely departs from the principle that the land is supposed to be in the position in which land usually passes.
With regard to the question of monopoly value, putting it quite generally, the land is to be assumed to be stripped of all buildings, whereas, on the other hand, the adjacent land is to be assumed to be in exactly the position in which it is now. That is telling the valuer that he has got to put a monopoly value on each single site in a street or place where there is competition for building sites.
I am going to show that, in dealing with this matter before, the Solicitor-General, with less than his usual clarity, has failed to apprehend the point that we were trying to put. This is not a case of comparing agricultural land with agricultural land. If it were, then you would be comparing like with like. This is a case of comparing land with buildings on it, but which is assumed to have no building on it, with adjacent land which is still assumed to have buildings on it. That is to compare like with unlike. The Solicitor-General shakes his head. Let me put this to him, and, if this be not what the Clause involves, let something be done to correct it.
Take the Strand. You are, with regard to each single unit—that is to say, the land in the possession of any given owner—to assume that that land is stripped of buildings, even that the site has not been excavated; but you are to assume that all the adjacent laud is in the condition in which it now is, with the buildings on it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said so in his speech, and he meant that. Suppose, for example, that the Savoy Hotel is the unit in question. If the Savoy Hotel is pulled down and every other building in the Strand stands, what is the value of that unit? How is the valuer to set about it except on the assumption that there is a demand for vacant sites in the Strand and that that is the only one? He has to make that assumption, not only with regard to the Savoy Hotel, but with regard to every other adjacent unit; in other words, when he comes to value the place next door, he has to assume that the Savoy Hotel is there. If the Clause does not mean that, I hope the Solicitor-General will tell us in what respect it does not mean that, and will, at any rate, undertake to make it clear that it shall not mean that.
When he dealt with this matter yesterday, he—I say it with the greatest respect—misapprehended the point put against him in the discussion on the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). The Solicitor-General then said this:
But the main argument of the hon. and gallant Member depended upon a point of valuation. His argument was that under the Bill all other land in the vicinity is to
be assumed to be devoted to the purpose to which it is devoted, in perpetuity "—
May I say in passing that there is no point in regard to perpetuity at all; it is devoted at the time of the valuation:
and that therefore the valuer would have to look upon this one piece of land as being the sole eligible piece of land in the market, and it would thereby attain a high and special value. I agree that if that was so in the Bill the effect would be as he states. But it is not what was in the Bill. What the Bill states is that the valuation of a land unit shall be made upon the basis that all land not comprised in the unit, and everything therein and thereon, was in its actual condition at the valuation date.
That is quite right. He went on:
That does not mean that the purpose for which it was being then used shall be assumed to be its purpose for ever. It merely means that if you go along a road and see on either side of the land unit agricultural land, you value that land unit as being one in the middle of agricultural land. It does not mean that you assume that there is something to prevent the other agricultural land from being sold for building purposes if the owners desire. Therefore, the whole of the argument which is based upon that artificial value which the hon. and gallant Member suggested might he given to land in my submission is entirely fallacious."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 9th June, 1931; cols. 954–5, Vol. 253.]
May I point out what I think is the fallacy in that? The Solicitor-General concentrates on agricultural land. It is true that, if you go down a road, and the road is surrounded on both sides by agricultural land, and you select any given unit, it does not matter that you have to apply this test there, because in fact you do not divest the unit artificially of buildings. But the moment you begin to take a unit in a place where there are existing buildings and declare that that unit alone is to be divested of buildings you introduce a fallacy in the valuation and you are at once comparing like with unlike. At last the old Finance Bill, which originated these sorts of taxes, avoided that fallacy, because, while saying that the land itself was to be stripped of its buildings, it did not lay down that the surrounding land was to be assumed still to have buildings upon it. I think the Solicitor-General must reconsider what he said yesterday and realise that there is a point of substance in this which has to be dealt with.
The other thing can be stated in a sentence. The whole supposition of this
valuation is that you can get vacant possession immediately. You are supposed to be having a value put upon the land on the assumption that vacant possession is to be obtained. We are all familiar with all sorts of hypotheses in connection with the rating and valuation of land. Hypothetically, at any rate, in connection with rating of land, a good many curious assumptions have to be swallowed. But never has Parliament been asked to put upon the Statute Book a, more curious assumption than that you can value land upon the assumption that you can at any moment get vacant possession while at the same moment there is, with regard to that land, on the Statute Book another Statute which says you cannot obtain vacant possession without getting rid of the Bent Restrictions Act. There is in this Bill no Clause for deducting from this hypothetical value the cost of getting rid of restriction, again departing from the principle that was laid down in the old Act where, before you got at the site value, you had to take into account any cost that was involved in getting rid of restriction. I think it is an absolute anomaly and absurdity to say that you are to assume vacant possession when the Rent Restrictions Act or any other Statute says you cannot possibly have it.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised an extraordinarily interesting point, and it is a little difficult to explain the view that I take upon it. The position of which he complains is that, to take his illustration of the Strand, when a valuer comes to the Strand he will assume that the particular unit which he is valuing is a cleared site, whereas the other units are not cleared sites. The thing that gives the element of high value to sites in the Strand is the fact that there are very few vacant sites in the Strand. Immediately you make the assumption which the hon. and learned Gentleman invites us to make, that there are no buildings in the neighbourhood, you at once come down to no value at all. You cannot assume that there are no buildings in a town if you want to get the accurate land value of sites in the town. What really determines the height of the land values in particular towns, and in particular districts of towns, is the scarcity of sites there. The real position
as regards the Strand is that, if you want to get a site in the Strand at present, you have to buy a house and pull it down. That is the only way you can get it. If most sites were empty, and there was no building there, you could walk along the Strand to-morrow and take up a site practically for nothing. That, really, is the explanation of the position so far as this valuation point is concerned. The form of the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman really points to the difficulty being an imaginary, and not a real one. What he says is, that it shall not be increased in value
by reason of any assumption that the land to be valued is the only land or one of a small number of pieces of land vacant or available for development in the immediate neighbourhood.
He has to determine the number. What is "a small number of pieces of land" in the Strand?

Sir B. MERRIMAN: It will not be tin-only one.

The SOLICITOR-GENEPAL: It may in fact be the only one. The hon. and learned Member says it will not be the only one. I do not know why he says that. If he wants another site in the Strand, he can buy one there. It will be assumed to be for sale if one likes to buy it.

Mr. O'CONNOR: The assumption is that there is a building on it. For the purpose of making a valuation it is treated as if there were no building on it. In that case it may very well be, on that assumption, the only one theoretically on which there is any value.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That raises quite a different point. It raises the point that it is the only site without a building on it; not that it is the only site, which is a completely different point with regard to land values. It does not mean that you cannot get a place in the Strand in which to build an hotel if you want to do so. It may mean that in order to get that place in the Strand you have to buy a number of shops and pull them down, which is quite a different point altogether. Immediately you put a false assumption of this sort upon a valuer who is valuing a piece of land, you are at once tending to destroy higher land value, because you are forcing
him to make an assumption which is not, in fact, true. You are forcing him to assume that in a particular district there are a number of vacant sites when there are not a number of vacant sites, and it is the lack of vacant sites which raises the land value in the district. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates the point which I am putting.
I will take the point with regard to the cost of getting rid of restrictions, and also the question of the statutory restrictions which are binding on the land. As regards the latter point, I think that the hon. and learned Member was probably referring mainly to the Bent. Restrictions Act. That, of course, is an Act which does not deal with restrictions on land at all; it deals with restrictions on buildings on land. There is no difference whatever between a rent restricted house and a house let under lease. There is no suggestion here that you are to assume that every lease over 21 years does not exist. The lease of a rent restricted house is not in a different position. You have simply a lease running, not for a certain term of years, as you will have in any case under the Bill, but for the uncertain term of the duration of the Rent Restrictions Act. The question of the lease is exactly the same thing in the two cases. Where there is any case in which you want to make a leaseholder under a short term to pay some of the land tax, it is a different point. On the question of the restriction of the landlord's power to use the land, there is no difference, whether the tenant is there by virtue of the Rent Restrictions Act or by virtue of an agreement for a lease for 21 years.

Sir B. MERRIMAN: In a row of houses, exactly alike as a row of peas, there is great difference between one which happens to have got rid of the Bent Restriction Act and is on a weekly tenancy and one which is tied up indefinitely under the Bent Restriction Acts.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: There is certainly a difference in the length of the lease, but no difference in the character of the whole lease. Let me add a third case to the two given by the hon. and learned Member. It is the case of property which is let for 21 years. There
is not the slightest difference between the three. It may be that the Rent Restrictions lease will fall in before or after the 21 years lease, but they are both leases and they are both for terms, one for a term that is certain and the other for a term that is uncertain.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: Is there not another difference? The lease is created by the lessor of his own free will, whereas a Rent Restrictions tenancy is imposed by Act of Parliament.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Member will appreciate the point that I am making, that it really does not matter whether the lease is created by an agreement, by a formal document, or by a Statute. The incidences of the tenure of the tenant are exactly the same so far as concerns the landlord getting him out.

Sir D. HERBERT: There is the question of consideration.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is a matter of money, I agree. The difference may be the difference in the amount of rent that is paid, but it has nothing to do with the possibility of the landlord getting him out. Under the 21 years lease and under the Rent Restrictions lease the position will be precisely the same. As regards the Statutory restrictions on the site, those are dealt with in the First Schedule. There is a provision in paragraph (g) of that Schedule by which where there are Statutory restrictions imposed which have become operative upon the site those are taken into consideration as an encumbrance and therefore they are not part of the land value.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the Solicitor-General say why in paragraph (g) there is a difference made between an agreement and a lease? I refer to the words in brackets.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes. An agreement is not to be a lease to which the unit is subject. That is to

say, you are not taking into account the specific leases dealing with that unit. When we come to the First Schedule I will try to explain the matter more fully. For the reasons that I have stated, we are unable to accept the two Amendments.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the position in which we find ourselves at this moment shows very clearly and forcefully the extraordinary limitation of our Debate. A most important subject has been raised and one which is admittedly extraordinarily difficult. The Solicitor-General has made a reply which to many of us seems entirely inadequate, but it is obvious that we cannot discuss it now. The Solicitor-General must admit that on the first case made by my hon. and learned Friend there is an artificial monopoly value attached to the site which has to be considered as vacant, although it is not vacant. The Solicitor-General argues that it is not the only vacant site but that there are other sites, on which there are buildings, and that those sites can be bought and the buildings pulled down and others erected in their place. It is pretence that there is not any difference in value between the vacant site as compared with the site which is not vacant. It is only a question of degree as between a site with buildings upon it and where there are no sites at all, but the same character applies to both, namely, that you have an artificial value created by the artificial conditions that you are laying down as to the way in which the valuer is to make the valuation.

It being Half-past Ten of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 4th June, to put forthwith the Question upon the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 284.

Division No. 294.]
AYES.
[10.31 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.
Atkinson, C.
Bellairs, Commander Canyon


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Betterton, Sir Henry B.


Albery, Irving James
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)


Allen, Sir J. Sandernan (Liverp'l., W.)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Bird, Ernest Roy


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfred W.
Balniel, Lord
Boothby, R. J. G.


Astor, Viscountess
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.


Atholl, Duchess of
Beaumont, M. W.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Boyce, Leslie
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Bracken, B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Power, Sir John Cecil


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Brass, Captain Sir William
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Purbrick, R.


Briscoe, Richard George
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ramsbotham, H.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Remer, John R.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Buchan, John
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Richardton, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hammersley, S. S.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Butler, R. A.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ross, Ronald D.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harvey, Major S. E. (Davon, Totnes)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Campbell, E. T.
Haslam, Henry C.
Salmon, Major I.


Carver, Major W. H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cattle Stewart, Earl of
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Savory, S. S.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Simms, Major-General J.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Hurd, Percy A.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Skelton, A. N.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N, (Edgbaston)
Iveagh, Countess of
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Chapman, Sir S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Christie, J. A.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smithers, Waldron


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Knox, Sir Alfred
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Colman, N. C. D.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cooper, A. Duff
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cowan, D. M.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Cranborne, Viscount
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Crookshank, Capt. H. (Lindley, Gainsbro)
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Thompson, Luke


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Train, J.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Marjoribanks, Edward
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Meller, R. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Eden, Captain Anthony
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Warrender, Sir Victor


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


England, Colonel A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wells, Sydney R.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston s-M.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ferguson, Sir John
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fielden, E. B.
Muirhead, A. J.
Withers, Sir John James


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Womorsley, W. J.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ganzoni, Sir John
O'Connor, T. J.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William



Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Peake, Capt. Osbert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Penny, Sir George
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Gower, Sir Robert
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sir Frederick Thomson and


Grace, John
Perkins, W. R. D.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Batey, Joseph
Brothers, M.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Beckett, John (Camberwell, peckham)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)


Alpass, J. H.
Benson, G.
Buchanan, G.


Ammon, Charles George
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Burgess, F. G.


Angell, Sir Norman
Birkett, W. Norman
Burgin, Dr. E. L.


Arnott, John
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)


Aske, Sir Robert
Bowen, J. W.
Caine, Hall-, Derwent


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cameron, A. G.


Ayles, Walter
Broad, Francis Alfred
Cape, Thomas


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Brockway, A. Fenner
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Bromfield, William
Chater, Daniel


Barnes, Alfred John
Bromley, J.
Church, Major A. G.


Barr, James
Brooke, W.
Clarke, J. S.


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Ritson, J.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lawrence, Susan
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Compton, Joseph
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Romeril, H. G.


Cove, William G.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Leach, W.
Rowson, Guy


Daggar, George
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dallas, George
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Dalton, Hugh
Lees, J.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Leonard, W.
Sanders, W. S.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sandham, E.


Day, Harry
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sawyer, G. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Logan, David Gilbert
Scurr, John


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Longbottom, A. W.
Sexton, Sir James


Dukes, C.
Longden, F.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Duncan, Charles
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Ede, James Chuter
Lunn, William
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Edge, Sir William
Macdonald, Gordon (Inca)
Sherwood, G. H.


Edmunds, J. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shield, George William


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shillaker, J. F


Egan, W. H.
McElwee, A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Elmley, Viscount
McEntee, V. L.
Simmons, C. J.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Sinkinson, George


Foot, Isaac
McKinlay, A.
Sitch, Charles H.


Freeman, Peter
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gibbins, Joseph
McShane, John James
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Gill, T. H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gillett, George M.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Glassey, A. E.
Manning, E. L.
Sorensen, R.


Gossling, A. G.
Mansfield, W.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gould, F.
March, S.
Stephen, Campbell


Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)
Marcus, M.
Strauss, G. R.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Markham, S. F.
Sullivan, J.


Gray, Milner
Marley, J.
Sutton, J. E.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marshall, Fred
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)
Mathers, George
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Matters, L. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Groves, Thomas E
Maxton, James
Thurtle, Ernest


Grundy, Thomas W.
Messer, Fred
Tillett, Ben


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Middleton, G.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Millar, J. D.
Toole, Joseph


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mills, J. E.
Tout, W. J.


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Milner, Major J.
Townend, A. E.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Montague, Frederick
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Harbord, A.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Turner, Sir Ben


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Morley, Ralph
Vaughan, David


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Viant, S. P.


Harris, Percy A.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Walkden, A. G.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mort, D. L.
Walker, J.


Haycock, A. W.
Muff, G.
Wallace, H. W.


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Watkins, F. C.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Murnin, Hugh
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Herriotts, J.
Nathan, Major H. L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col D. (Rhondda)


Hicks, Ernest George
Naylor, T. E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hirst, G. H. (York W. H. Wentworth)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hoffman, P. C.
Oldfield, J. R.
West, F. R.


Hopkin, Daniel
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Westwood, Joseph


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
White, H. G.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Isaacs, George
Palin, John Henry.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Jenkins, Sir William
Paling, Wilfrid
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Palmer, E. T.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Perry, S. F.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Pole, Major D. G.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Kelly, W. T.
Potts, John S.
Wise, E. F.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Price, M. P.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Ouibell, D. J. K.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Kinley, J.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson



Kirkwood, D.
Raynes, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Knight, Holford
Richards, R.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Charleton.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose
of the business to be concluded at this day's Sitting.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 216.

Division No. 295.]
AYES.
[10.40 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Glassey, A. E.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gossling, A. G.
Manning, E. L.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gould, F.
Mansfield, W.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
March, S.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Marcus, M.


Alpass, J. H.
Gray, Milner
Markham, S. F.


Ammon, Charles George
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marley, J.


Angell, Sir Norman
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Marshall, Fred


Arnott, John
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mathers, George


Aske, Sir Robert
Groves, Thomas E
Matters, L. W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Ayles, Walter
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Messer, Fred


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Middleton, G.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Millar, J. D.


Barnes, Altred John
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mills, J. E.


Barr, James
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Milner, Major J.


Batey, Joseph
Harbord, A.
Montague, Frederick


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bonn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Morley, Ralph


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Harris, Percy A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Benson, G.
Haycock, A. W.
Mort, D. L.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Muff, G.


Birkett, W. Norman
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Harriotts, J.
Murnin, Hugh


Bowen, J. W.
Hicks, Ernest George
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H, (York W. R. Wentworth)
Naylor, T. E.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hoffman, P. C.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Bromfield, William
Hopkin, Daniel
Oldfield, J. R.


Bromley, J.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Brooke, W.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Brothers, M.
Isaacs, George
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir William
Palin, John Henry


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Paling, Wilfrid


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Palmer, E. T.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Perry, S. F.


Burgess, F. G.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Kelly, W. T
Pole, Major D. G.


Cameron, A. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Potts, John S.


Cape, Thomas
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Price, M. P.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Kinley, J.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Chater, Daniel
Kirkwood, D.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Church, Major A. G.
Knight, Holford
Raynes, W. R.


Clarke, J. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Richards, R.


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lawrence, Susan
Ritson, J.


Compton, Joseph
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Cove, William G.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Romeril, H. G.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Leach, W.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Daggar, George
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Rowson, Guy


Dallas, George
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dalton, Hugh
Lees, J
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Leonard, W.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sanders, W. S.


Day, Harry
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sandham, E.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Logan, David Gilbert
Sawyer, G. F.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Longbottom, A. W.
Scurr, John


Dukes, C.
Longden, F.
Sexton, Sir James


Duncan, Charles
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Ede, James Chuter
Lunn, William
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Edge, Sir William
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Edmunds, J. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sherwood, G. H.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shield, George William


Egan, W. H.
McElwee, A.
Shillaker, J. F.


Elmley, Viscount
McEntee, V. L.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Foot, Isaac
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Simmons, C. J.


Freeman, Peter
McKinlay, A.
Sinkinson, George


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
MacLaren, Andrew
Sitch, Charles H.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Gibbins, Joseph
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gill, T. H.
McShane, John James
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gillett, George M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Turner, Sir Ben
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Sorensen, R.
Vaughan, David
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Stamford, Thomas W.
Viant, S. P.
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Stephen, Campbell
Walkden, A. G.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Strams, G. R.
Walker, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sullivan, J.
Wallace, H. W.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Sutton, J. E.
Watkins, F. C.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wise, E. F.


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wellock, Wilfred
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Thurtle, Ernest
Welsh, James (Paisley)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Tillett, Ben
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)



Tinker, John Joseph
West, F. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Toole, Joseph
Westwood, Joseph.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Tout, W. J.
White, H. G.
Charleton.


Townend, A. E.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Albery, Irving Jamas
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Marjoribanks, Edward


Astor, Viscountess
Eden, Captain Anthony
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Atholl, Duchess of
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Meller, R. J.


Atkinson, C.
England, Colonel A.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston S. M.)
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Ferguson, Sir John
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Balniel, Lord
Fielden, E. B.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Beaumont, M. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Muirhead, A. J.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
O'Connor, T. J.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gower, Sir Robert
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Grace, John
Penny, Sir George


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Boyce, Leslie
G rattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bracken, B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Brass, Captain Sir William
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Power, Sir John Cecil


Briscoe, Richard George
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Purbrick, R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsbotham, H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Buchan, John
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Remer, John R.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hammersley, S. S.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Butler, R. A.
Hartington, Marquess of
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Campbell, E. T.
Haslam, Henry C.
Ross, Ronald D.


Carver, Major W. H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Salmon, Major I.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cayzer, Sir C (Chester, City)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Sandeman, Sir N- Stewart


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Savery, S. S.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Simms, Major-General J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Chapman, Sir S.
Iveagh, Countess of
Skelton, A. N.


Christie, J. A.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smithers, Waldron


Colman, N. C. D.
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Somerset, Thomas


Colville, Major D. J.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cooper, A. Duff
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)




Thompson, Luke
Warrender, Sir Victor
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Womersley, W. J.


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wells, Sydney R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Train, J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Turton, Robert Hugh
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Withers, Sir John James
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Wallace.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the. Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: All hon. Members on this side, at any rate, will be equally surprised and resentful that the Government have thought fit to move to report Progress and ask leave to sit again. In view of the Puling which was given two nights ago, we know now that it is perfectly possible for us to go on discussing the next Clause in this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If this Motion had not been moved, that is precisely what we should have done. We should have been discussing now the first Amendment to Clause 9. I am bound to say that the proceedings of the last two days have filled us with very great apprehension as to the possibility of getting any reasonable discussion upon the Clauses of this Bill. When we found the other night that there was no limit to the time to which we could go in debating one of the very important pair of Clauses allotted to the two days, we hoped at least to have finished Clause 7 last night, but not only was the time taken up by speeches from hon. Members opposite, which really had very little relevance to the Clause, but rather than suffer the inconvenience which some hon. Members opposite thought they might have to suffer if they sat beyond a certain hour of the evening, the Government themselves moved to report Progress before we had finished the discussion upon the last Amendment which we proposed to take on Clause 7.
The result of that was that on Clause 8—apart from Clause 7, the most important Clause in the Bill, the one which raises the largest number of controversial points, and the one which affects the largest number of people—our whole discussion has been confined to the few hours between a little after 6 o'clock and half-past 10. Really, that is not a reasonable way in which to conduct discussions upon a Bill of this kind. I believe that we have had to sacrifice
something like 24 of the Amendments which he had put down to Clause 8 to-day. I am very grateful to you, Sir Robert, for having allowed us to indicate to you those Amendments upon which we desire especially to have an opportunity of saying something, but it has been necessary to ask our hon. Friends almost in every case to curtail their speeches to a very much greater extent than they desired, and to do less than justice to the points which they were endeavouring to make, in order that we might have an opportunity of raising other points on Amendments which were to come later. I had to be stopped in the middle of the only speech I have made upon this Clause, and of course it is quite obvious that the very short time that we are to be given on Report will be totally inadequate for the discussion of the points that have been stifled in our Debates.
What about to-morrow? To-morrow we have five Clauses to discuss. I do not pretend that any of them have quite the importance of the two which we have been discussing during the last two days, but they are important Clauses, and one of them, Clause 11, deals with the whole subject of appeals, and is therefore of vital important to all those whose interests are affected by the Bill or who will be subject to the charges imposed by the Bill. I took the trouble to see how many Amendments hon. Members desire to have discussed on Clause 11, and I find that from my hon. Friends behind alone there are upwards of 50 Amendments—[Laughter]. What does it matter to hon. Members opposite if these things are not discussed I They have their friends below the Gangway, and things can go hang so long as they can get home. May I point out that the Government did not think it proper to move to report Progress until 11.30 last night, and I suggest that it is not decent on their part to insist upon the letter of the Guillotine Resolution to-night, when they know perfectly well that by sitting up no longer than they chose to sit last night, they could give us the opportunity
of discussing some part of the business allotted for to-morrow and so give us a little more chance to-morrow. I shall oppose this proposal, and I hope my hon. Friends will go into the Lobby with me to make their protest against what is a monstrous action.

Mr. E. BROWN: I have no intention of repeating anything I have said against the Guillotine and this forced closure on taxation, but I want to point out one important point. There are a number of Amendments on the Order Paper to all the Clauses which have nothing whatever to do with politics. They are business Amendments put down on behalf of all kinds of organisations, some of whose sponsors are in favour of the tax. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who is Member for Central Edinburgh, knows that I have to-day put down a very important Amendment on behalf of the Edinburgh Corporation——[Laughter]. Hon. Members sneer, but the Socialist Members for Edinburgh will not sneer. This is only one of the 16 Amendments which I have put down on behalf of the corporation, and, after our experience to-day, I venture to say that there is no fair-minded Member in any part of the House but who is bound to agree with the arguments we addressed against the Guillotine on taxation, and I once more register my protest against a premature closure of this kind.

Mr. BALFOUR: I am sure that every independent back-bench Member of the House of Commons who has any respect whatever for the dignity of the 11.0 p.m. House is grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) for having uttered his emphatic protest. I wonder what the people outside will say when they look round and find out who are the protectors of the liberty of the subject? [Interruption.] Hon Member opposite may laugh and sneer, but in the past this House of Commons has protected the right of free debate. We, and I do not

say "we" as Members of the Conservative party, but we Members of the House of Commons, of every party have, in the past, always endeavoured to give free play to free discussion in order that the rights and liberties of the people might be properly protected. What have we got to-night? A subject which affects a very large proportion of the whole population is not only guillotined, but when an opportunity arises, even within the limits of the Guillotine, for a little more Debate, a Motion to report Progress is moved by the Government. If it is the idea of right hon. and hon. Members opposite that Socialism is to be planted on this country——

The CHAIRMAN: The Question is that I do report Progress, and we must confine ourselves to that point.

Mr. BALFOUR: I am not unmindful of the Question before the House, and I do not think I am straying very far from it in putting before the House the opposition we have to that Motion. I will content myself with this one observation. In the past the people of this country fought against Kings in order to preserve in their own hands control of the finances of the country; to-day the Conservative Members of this House have to fight a Socialist party in order to maintain for the people the right to control the finances. There is one thing we can claim, and that is that in spite of the opposition put up against us by Members on the Government benches and by the two Front Benches below the gangway, on this side we, as a Conservative party, will go on fighting in order to maintain the liberty of the subject and free debate in connection with the finances of the country.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy): rose in his place, and claimed to move,

"That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 211.

Division No. 296.]
AYES.
[11.4 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Ammon, Charles George
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Angell, Sir Norman
Barnes, Alfred John


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Arnott, John
Barr, James


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Attlee, Clement Richard
Batey, Joseph


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Ayles, Walter
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)


Alpass, J. H.
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Isaacs, George
Price, M. P.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Jenkins, Sir William
Quibell, D. J. K.


Benson, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Rathbone, Eleanor


Birkett, W. Norman
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Raynes, W. R.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Richards, R.


Bowen, J. W.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Kelly, W. T.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Ritson, J.


Bromfield, William
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Bromley, J.
Kinley, J.
Romeril, H. G.


Brooke, W.
Kirkwood, D.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Brothers, M.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rowson, Guy


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Sanders, W. S.


Burgess, F. G.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Sawyer, G. F.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Scurr, John


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Leach, W.
Sexton, Sir James


Cameron, A. G.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Cape, Thomas
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lees, J.
Sherwood, G. H.


Chater, Daniel
Leonard, W.
Shield, George William


Church, Major A. G.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shillaker, J. F.


Clarke, J. S.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cluse, W. S.
Logan, David Gilbert
Simmons, C. J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Longbottom, A. W.
Sinkinson, George


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Longden, F.
Sitch, Charles H.


Compton, Joseph
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Cove, William G.
Lunn, William
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Daggar, George
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Dallas, George
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Dalton, Hugh
McElwee, A.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
McEntee, V. L.
Sorensen, R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
McKinlay, A.
Stephen, Campbell


Dukes, C.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Strauss, G. R.


Duncan, Charles
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sullivan, J.


Ede, James Chuter
McShane, John James
Sutton, J. E.


Edmunds, J. E.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Elmley, Viscount
Manning, E. L.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Mansfield, W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Foot, Isaac
Marcus, M.
Tillett, Ben


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Markham, S. F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Marley, J.
Toole, Joseph


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Marshall, Fred
Tout, W. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Mathers, George
Townend, A. E.


Gill, T. H.
Matters, L. W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James
Vaughan, David


Glassey, A. E.
Messer, Fred
Viant, S. P.


Gossling, A. G.
Middleton, G.
Walkden, A. G.


Gould, F.
Mills, J. E.
Walker, J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Milner, Major J.
Wallace, H. W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Montague, Frederick
Watkins, F. C.


Gray, Milner
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morley, Ralph
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Groves, Thomas E.
Mort, D. L.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Muff, G.
West, F. R.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Westwood, Joseph


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Murnin, Hugh
White, H. G.


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Harbord, A.
Noel-Buxton. Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Williams, E. J (Ogmore)


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Oldfield, J. R.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Haycock, A. W.
Palin, John Henry
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Paling, Wilfrid
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Palmer, E. T.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Herriotts, J.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wise, E. F.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Perry, S. F.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Hoffman, P. C.
Phillips, Dr. Marlon



Hopkin, Daniel
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Pole, Major D. G.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Charleton.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Potts, John S





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
England, Colonel A.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Albery, Irving James
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
O'Connor, T. J.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Aske, Sir Robert
Ferguson, Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Astor, Viscountess
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Atholl, Duchess of
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Penny, Sir George


Atkinson, C.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Perkins, W. R. D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Balniel, Lord
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Purbrick, R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gower, Sir Robert
Ramsbotham, H.


Beaumont, M. W.
Grace, John
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Remer, John R.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Salmon, Major I.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Boyce, Leslie
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Bracken, B.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Savery, S. S.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hammersley, S. S.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Briscoe, Richard George
Harris, Percy A.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hartington, Marquess of
Skelton, A. N.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Haslam, Henry C.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Buchan, John
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Smithers, Waldron


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Somerset, Thomas


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Butler, R. A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Campbell, E. T.
Iveagh, Countess of
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Carver, Major W. H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thompson, Luke


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Thomson, Mitchell., Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Chapman, Sir S.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Christie, J. A.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Train, J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Colfox, Major William Philip
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Colman, N. C. D.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Colville, Major D. J.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Cooper, A. Duff
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Warrender, Sir Victor


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wells, Sydney R.


Cranborne, Viscount
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Marjoribanks, Edward
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Meller, R. J.
Weimer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Womersley, W. J.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Millar, J. D.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Milne, Wardlaw, J. S.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.



Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Muirhead, A. J.
Margesson.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 264; Noes, 209.

Division No. 297.]
AYES.
[11.16 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Arnott, John


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Alpass, J. H.
Attlee, Clement Richard


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Ammon, Charles George
Ayles, Walter


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Angell, Sir Norman
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hicks, Ernest George
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Barnes, Alfred John
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Barr, James
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Pole, Major D. G.


Batey, Joseph
Hoffman, P. C.
Potts, John S.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hopkin, Daniel
Price, M. P.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Benson, G.
Isaacs, George
Rathbone, Eleanor


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jenkins, Sir William
Raynes, W. R.


Birkett, W. Norman
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Richards, R.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bowen, J. W.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Ritson, J.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Romeril, H. G.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Kelly, W. T.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Bromfield, William
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Rowson, Guy


Bromley, J.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Brooke, W.
Kinley, J.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Brothers, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sanders, W. S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Sawyer, G. F.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Scurr, John


Buchanan, G.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Sexton, Sir James


Burgess, F. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)
Sherwood, G. H.


Cameron, A. G.
Leach, W.
Shield, George William


Cape, Thomas
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Shillaker, J. F.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Chater, Daniel
Lees, J.
Simmons, C. J.


Church, Major A. G.
Leonard, W.
Sinkinson, George


Clarke, J. S.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sitch, Charles H.


Cluse, W. S.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R
Logan, David Gilbert
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour.
Longbottom, A. W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Compton, Joseph
Longden, F.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Cove, William G.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lunn, William
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Daggar, George
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sorensen, R.


Dallas, George
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Stephen, Campbell


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
McElwee, A.
Strauss, G. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McEntee, V. L.
Sullivan, J.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Sutton, J. E.


Dukes, C
McKinlay, A.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Duncan, Charles
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Ede, James Chuter
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Edmunds, J. E.
McShane, John James
Thurtle, Ernest


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton)
Tillett, Ben


Egan, W. H.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Tinker, John Joseph


Elmley, Viscount
Manning, E. L.
Toole, Joseph


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Mansfield, W.
Tout, W. J.


Foot, Isaac
Marcus, M.
Townend, A. E.


Freeman, Peter
Markham, S. F.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Marley, J.
Vaughan, David


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Marshall, Fred
Viant, S. P.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mathers, George
Walkden, A. G.


Gibbins, Joseph
Matters, L. W.
Walker, J.


Gill, T. H.
Maxton, James
Wallace, M. W.


Gillett, George M.
Messer, Fred
Watkins, F. C.


Glassey, A. E.
Middleton, G.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gossling, A. G.
Mills, J. E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gould, F.
Milner, Major J.
Wellock, Wilfred


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Montague, Frederick
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Gray, Milner
Morley, Ralph
West, F. R.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Westwood, Joseph


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
White, H. G.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mort, D. L.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Groves, Thomas E.
Muff, G.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Murnin, Hugh
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Noel Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Harbord, A.
Oldfield, J. R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Wise, E. F.


Harris, Percy A.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Palin, John Henry
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Haycock, A. W.
Paling, Wilfrid



Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Perry, S. F.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Charleton.


Herriotts, J.
Pethick-Lawrenee, F. W.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Eden, Captain Anthony
Muirhead, A. J.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Albery, Irving James
England, Colonel A.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s M.)
O'Connor, T. J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Aske, Sir Robert
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Astor, Viscountess
Ferguson, Sir John
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Atholl, Duchess of
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Penny, Sir George


Atkinson, C.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Power, Sir John Cecil


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Balniel, Lord
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Purbrick, R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Ramsbotham, H.


Beaumont, M. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Grace, John
Remer, John R.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Salmon, Major I.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Boyce, Leslie
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Bracken, B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Savery, S. S.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hammersley, S. S.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Briscoe, Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hartington, Marquess of
Skelton, A. N.


Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Haslam, Henry C.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Buchan, John
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Smithers, Waldron


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Somerset, Thomas


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Butler, R. A.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Campbell, E. T.
Hurd, Percy A.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Carver, Major W. H.
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Iveagh, Countess of
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Steel-Maitland. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast Couth)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Thompson, Luke


Chapman, Sir S
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thomson, Sir F.


Christie, J. A.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Colfox, Major William Philip
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Train, J.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.


Colman, N. C. D.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Colville, Major D. J.
Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyan


Cooper, A. Duff
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Cranborne, Viscount
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Wells, Sydney R.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Marjoribanks, Edward
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Meller, R. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Dalkeith, Earl of
Millar, J. D.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)



Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Captain Margesson and Captain Wallace.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Committee accordingly report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.